FOCUSACTION FOR GLOBAL JUSTICEIssue 90 / Summer 2012ISSN 1649-7368

INSIDE Action – Call for Trade Justice Alternatives / Southern Perspectives on Trade and Development / Capitalism – Fit for purpose? / Human Trafficking: Trade with a Human Face / Ireland’s New Africa Strategy / Fairtrade Cotton / Trade, Agriculture and Development / Comhlámh News

Har

vesti

ng h

ope a

fter w

ar in

the f

ield

s of n

orth

ern

Uga

nda

DFI

D -

UK

Dep

artm

ent f

or In

tern

atio

nal D

evelo

pmen

t

{ 2 } Focus

{ Welcome }

Printed by Tralee Printwww.traleeprinting.com

Printed on recycled paper

Credits & Contact detailsFocus magazine, established in 1978, now published three times a year, is Ireland’s leading magazine on global development issues. It is published by Comhlámh, Development Workers in Global Solidarity, Ireland, which works to promote global development through education and action. The views expressed in individual articles are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Comhlámh, Irish Aid or our other funders.

We have tried to contact all relevant photographers to seek their permission to use photographs. We apologise to those we have been unable to trace.

The publication of Focus Action is grant aided by the Development Education unit of Irish Aid.

Honorary Patron, Mary Robinson.

© Copyright Comhlámh 2012.

CorrespondenceComhlámh, 2nd Floor, Ballast HouseAston Quay, Dublin 2Ph 01 4783490 E-mail: info@comhlamh.org

We Need You – Get InvolvedFocus is produced by an editorial collective of volunteers, with the support of the Comhlámh office. New volunteers are always welcome. Please contact Comhlámh if you are interested in any aspect of the production of this magazine. No prior experience is necessary.

Code of Conduct on Images and MessagesComhlámh is signatory to the Dóchas Code of Conduct on Images and Messages (for full document see http://www.comhlamh.org/resources-library.html or contact us for a copy of the Dóchas flyer). Feedback on this issue is most welcome – email: info@comhlamh.org

Editorial teamEditorial Team: Fleachta Phelan, Lisa Wilson, Doireann Cooney, Hannah Hamilton, David Traynor, Izzy Fox, Deirdre Kelly, Philip Kilgannon, Lucy Watts, Helen Lane, Neil Walsh, Sorcha Mellon, Amy An-derson, Caroline Connolly, Jasmin Marston, Louise O’Meara, Áine RickardPhotography: DFID - UK Department for International Development, Dennis Cowals, Flávio EiróCover Image: DFID - UK Department for International DevelopmentDesign/illustration: Alice Fitzgerald (www.alicefitzgerald.com)

In a world that seems so unfair, don't you wish that Ireland would stand up for justice? Yet there have been moments to be proud of when Ireland helped make a difference:

against apartheid for the freedom of East Timor for debt cancellation

But these breakthroughs only happen because people - like you - demand change and make justice matter. For 36 years, Comhlámh (Irish for 'solidarity' and pronounced 'co-law-ve') has been educating and campaiging for global justice in solidarity with the developing world.

Our members challenge the root causes of injustice and inequality - globally and locally.

Charity alone will never change the world

Sign up for membership atwww.comhlamh.orgJoin our activist network at: http://www.facebook.com/Comhlamh

twitter.com/comhlamh

You can join in campaigns for Trade Justice against racism for aid that makes a difference

Comhlámh can also offer advice on overseas volunteering.

Join Comhlámh: take action for global justice

The views expressed herein are those of Comhlámh and can in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of Irish Aid.

#33ccff logo (web color)

additional Twitter web colors:

Logo design © Twitter Logo traced by Jon Knox / hellobrute.com / brutejonny.com

For personal use only. Distribution without permission is prohibited. All Rights Reserved.

{ Focus Action }

Focus { 3 }

Action:Oppose the EPA Ultimatum: Call for Trade Justice AlternativesWhat’s the problem?For the past ten years, the European Union has been negotiating free trade agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) countries known as Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs). Many ACP governments have been very critical of the negotiations. They are worried these trade deals will mainly benefit European economic interests and could damage their development and poverty eradication needs.

Because of these concerns many countries have refused to sign the trade agreements; only 10 African nations have so far signed an EPA. Faced with this resistance, the European Commission is piling on the pressure. It has tabled a proposal that unless ACP countries sign and implement EPAs by 2014, they will have their preferential trade access to the EU market cut, which could lead to serious economic difficulties for many countries.

This isn’t fair! No country should be forced to sign an EPA, especially when so many contentious issues have yet to be addressed. As the President of the ACP Parliamentary Assembly, Hon. Musikari Kombo, says “EPA negotiations are negotiations. One must not give ultimatums”. But by threatening to withdraw market access, the Commission is effectively forcing these countries to sign trade agreements they are unhappy with.

What can you do? Act now for Change!Now is the time to contact our MEPs to call for change.

An important vote on this issue is taking place in the EU parliament in September. Across Europe people are asking their MEPs to stand up for trade justice and vote no. Together we can support ACP countries’ right to choose their own economic path.

Please write to, email, call or visit your MEP, outlining your opposition to this unfair ultimatum, and demand alternative approaches. Let your MEP know we don’t want developing countries to be bullied, and Europe must change its approach to global trade to respect their right to policy space.

We’ve developed a template letter along with some more information and important quotes and facts from affected countries to help you do this. You can download it, and read more information on this topic here: http://www.comhlamh.org/campaigns

What’s Comhlámh calling for on EPAs? We are part of a global campaign of trade justice movements in Africa, the Caribbean, the Pacific and Europe.

We are calling on the European Parliament to: • Vote against the Commission’s proposal to withdraw

preferential market access for these countries. • Propose that no EPAs should be signed before contentious

issues are resolved and that countries in the process of negotiating these agreements should continue to have preferential market access.

• Listen to and amplify ACP countries’ concerns in Europe.• Support alternatives to EPAs where countries do not want to

sign them.

For more info see:http://www.comhlamh.org/campaignshttp://www.comhlamh.org/epas-hearing-april-2012 http://www.traidcraft.co.uk/get_involved/campaign/stop_epashttp://www.bilaterals.org/spip.php?rubrique17

Bloom is:

{ 4 } Focus

{ Southern Alternatives }

Perspectives on the relationship and linkages between trade and development, and how trade can support development, diverge significantly, and have been the subject of significant debate for decades. The EU has for

years advocated that developing countries will experience significant benefits if they open up their markets to international trade. It argues that competition and open markets will promote innovation, specialisation and increased trade and investment, which will lead to economic growth, which will in turn lead to poverty eradication. However, this belief has long been questioned. Many civil society groups, social movements, academics, NGOs and others across the world are concerned that this understanding of economics prioritises the profit of corporations and industries of the Global North rather than the interests of people globally. It undermines developing country governments’ capacity to determine their own economic policies and has contributed to social, economic and environmental difficulties across the globe. Free trade policies have also contributed significantly to bringing about the global financial and jobs crisis. Perhaps Europe needs to rethink its policies to address the multiple crises, locally and globally?

The Importance of AlternativesIn this context Comhlámh, along with its European partners, is publishing a report containing eight papers from authors from the Global South, outlining many different alternatives to EU trade policy in a broad range of areas. We aim to highlight the range and depth of perspectives on alternative economic approaches in countries of the Global South and to promote a discussion about trade, poverty and development among European citizens and policy makers. It is essential that the EU takes into account such alternative proposals from the Global South and the development objectives of its partner countries in its trade policies, if it is to ensure coherence between its own trade and development agendas. This is all the more urgent in the context of a global economic downturn and climate crisis which is disproportionately impacting upon developing countries’ economies and livelihoods. It is increasingly urgent that a conversation on alternative visions for the world is nurtured, highlighting positive alternative approaches at grassroots or international level, where economic policy is balanced by social and environmental needs. For the sake of people in Europe

and globally, and of the planet, it is imperative that European policy makers pay heed to civil society voices globally and engage with this important discussion and debate. Here we present some key quotes from the report. We hope they whet your appetite and encourage you to read it in full.

Alternatives to Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs) in Southern AfricaTimothy Kondo “The current EU trade policy towards ACP [African, Caribbean and Pacific] countries fails to address the imbalances between the regions. EPAs are not only an inadequate response to trade patterns dating back to the colonial times, but they also risk to undermine existing regional integration approaches and to limit the policy space developing countries need to pursue their own economic and social development strategies […] Therefore EU trade policy needs to be radically revised. The EU must change its approach in the EPA negotiations, re-negotiate contentious issues and respect the policy space and the prioritisation for bottom up regional integration processes of its trading partners. EU trade policy needs also to be democratised, among others things by ensuring effective participation of all stakeholders at all stages of the policy process.”

Proposals on Agriculture, Trade, Food Sovereignty, and AgroecologyHenry Saragih and Mary Lou Malig “Food sovereignty puts the aspirations and needs of those who produce, distribute and consume food at the heart of the food systems and policies rather than the demands of markets and corporations. It defends the interests of the next generation. It offers a strategy to resist and dismantle the current corporate trade and food regime, by promoting food, farming, pastoral and fisheries systems determined by local producers and users. Food sovereignty prioritises local and national economies and markets and empowers peasant and family farmer-driven agriculture, artisanal fishing, pastoralist-led grazing, and food production, distribution and consumption based on environmental, social and economic sustainability. Food sovereignty promotes transparent trade that guarantees just incomes to all peoples as well as the rights of consumers to control their food and nutrition.”

Southern Alternatives on Trade and DevelopmentThoughts and ideas from Southern activists and movements on how a different European trade policy could put people and planet first.

{ Southern Alternatives }

Focus { 5 }

Transitions towards post-extractive societies in Latin America: An answer to the EU Raw Materials InitiativeCarlos Aguilar “The main concern of governments should be on the imbalances caused by the hegemony of multinational corporations and the vulnerability of communities and countries in the face of the social and environmental impact of extractive activities. There can be no meaningful proposals for social inclusion without a greater involvement and participation of organised communities, or without reinforcing their mechanisms of cohesion and advocacy in the face of the prevalent global logic of appropriation of the commons and life.”

Alternative Trade Policies from Latin America, A Response to the European Union Free Trade AgendaEnrique Daza“These proposals are all linked to the rejection of the very foundations of the Western capitalist model; the proposal of “good living” is a critique of consumerism in the search for a way to restore harmony with nature. It is not just a solution for Bolivia or the region’s problems, but a response to the several global crises and a rejection of the energy model based on fossil-fuels. It is a critique of excessive industrialisation, of mass agro-exports, of the waste and privatisation of water, of biofuels, of genetically modified organisms. It is a defence of peasant economies, of local markets, and of the rights of Mother Earth. Many social movements around the world have adopted these proposals and have incorporated them as part of their project for social change. The water and gas “wars” in Bolivia, the agrarian struggle against biofuels, the struggle for the nationalisation of natural resources are examples of the mass mobilisation around these issues.”

Water Justice and Democracy: Alternatives to Commercialisation and Privatisation of Water in AsiaMary Ann Manahan, Buenaventura Dargantes and Cheryl Batistel“Public and community responses and alternatives to the commercialisation and privatisation of water abound, especially in the areas of access to, control and sustainability of drinking water supply or water service provision in both rural and urban areas. These alternative models of water service provision are very wide ranging, as they depend on the condition and specificities of a particular area or country. There is no ‘one-size-fits-all’ alternative that has emerged. But common among them is responding to the need for people-centred, ecologically sustainable, and progressive public water management and on-the-ground solutions, particularly to the problem of water access and universal coverage, particularly for the poor and marginalised”.

To read the full report, and the introduction accompanying it see: www.comhlamh.org/campaigns

To read about the Alternative Trade Mandate Alliance, an alliance of trade justice activists and groups working together to envision an alternative European trade policy see www.alternativetrademandate.org

{ 6 } Focus

{ Capitalism }

Our current economic system’s obsession with profit and growth is at the expense of the most vulnerable in society and the environment. So why do we continue to follow its rules? Half of all food in the EU goes to waste, while one

seventh of the global population go hungry! Can we really say that the capitalist system is working? And if it is indeed broken, then why not fix it? We in Ireland, along with most countries, live in a market economy. The era of austerity that countries of the Global South have been suffering from for decades has finally caught up with us in the North. Perhaps now is the time to undertake the daunting task of getting under the bonnet of the current system to see what’s not working and decide whether it should be scrapped, patched up or retro-fitted with a new, fuel-efficient, environmentally-friendly, socially responsible engine.

• Profit: Profit is capitalism’s primary motivation and goal. But why is profit the only goal? Who decided this, and who agreed to go along with it as a sustainable basis for an economic system? Why are the social and environmental costs of capitalism not accounted for? Primark, for example, made £341/€413 million profit in 2010. These massive profits rely on people in impoverished countries like Bangladesh and India where labour is cheap and labour laws non-existent or unenforced. Workers endure notoriously difficult and often dangerous working conditions in garment factories, earning as little as £60/€72 per month.

• Maximising profits often comes at a cost to the environment. Shell’s multi-billion profits have arguably been made at the expense of the environment globally. The estimated cost of cleaning up the oil spills and awarding compensation in the Niger Delta is over $10 billion. Most Nigerians haven’t benefitted economically from their oil and gas reserves and yet are left with the damages incurred to their ecosystem.

• Liberalisation: Liberalisation opens markets by removing things that get in the way of free trade, such as taxes on imports and exports. This opens up local markets to competition from foreign goods. The theory is to even out the playing field in trading of both domestic and foreign goods in the same market.

• But when countries liberalise their economies, big businesses inevitably enter the market and local producers can’t compete. With the Free Trade Agreement currently being negotiated between the EU and India, it is estimated that there will be significant job and income losses in a range of sectors for India, including agriculture and retail. In a country where 54% of the population already live on less than $2 a day and over 40% of children are underweight, serious questions need to be asked about who exactly will benefit from liberalisation.

• Deregulation: Deregulation comes as part of liberalising a country’s economy. Governments back away from interfering in economies and let the market decide. By deregulating, governments take away some of the rules which regulate how companies behave. But surely, considering that companies’ main concern is maximising profits, responsible regulation is an absolute must. In Ireland, and globally, lack of regulation brought about by the belief that it interferes with growth and economic development, played a key role in causing the current financial crisis.

• Competition: Capitalism tells us that competition is good as it makes systems more efficient and competitive. This is true when we consider how the cost of many products in the Global North has dropped in recent years due to mass production and more competitors in the market. However, competition also leads to a race to the bottom in terms of wages for workers, especially in the Global South. Once again, when the only aim is profit, the benefits go to the few at the expense of the many.

• Individualism: Capitalism is based on individual rights. But has individualism led to irresponsible and short term solutions, rather than a more holistic global approach? Globalisation causes much more interdependence. Without the tea pickers in the plantations, miners extracting minerals, workers in factories, or the consumers at the end of the supply chain, multinational corporations could not make their huge profits. This individualistic tendency has also filtered down to consumers, who may simply think of the product they want to buy, rather than the people along the supply chain who may have been exploited to make the product such a bargain. As global supply chains become longer, consumers don’t know the people who produce their products, so may not be willing to spend a few extra euro to ensure their welfare.

• At home, we can see how this individualism helped lead our country into recession. And when the capitalist model comes crashing down, it is the vulnerable in society, who benefited least from these profits, that pay the cost. The last budget saw more cuts to social welfare, child benefit, carers’ allowance and disability allowances, while nearly half of Ireland’s millionaires paid less than 30% tax last year.

Deirdre Kelly wonders whether our current economic system is fit for purpose.

Capitalism: for better or worse, for the richer or poorer?!

“The era of austerity that countries of the Global South have been suffering from for decades has finally caught up with us in the North.”

Focus { 7 }

• Massconsumerism: The capitalist system relies on continuous growth through mass consumerism. We now use 50% more natural resources than we did just 30 years ago. The average Irish person produces 10 tonnes of carbon emissions per year while the average person in many poor African nations produces less than 0.1 tonne: yet the effect of this overconsumption is felt in the places that have contributed the least. If we continue at this rate between 75 and 250 million people in Africa won’t have enough water by 2020 and crop production will fall by 50%. With climate change becoming a devastating reality for increasing numbers around the globe, we must seriously question how our over-consumption is contributing to this problem, and how we plan to deal with the inevitable (and often needless) waste that it produces.

In the face of all this doom and gloom, people are rallying and movements are building: NGOs often step in to provide services where the capitalist system has failed to do so, or to call for transformation of our economic system. The Occupy movements around the world are questioning the role of finance in our societies. The Transition Towns initiative involves small-scale local responses to the global challenges of climate change, economic hardship and shrinking supplies of cheap energy. Such actions and movements (and there are many more) are challenging the system and leading by

example on alternative approaches. Individual behavioural change also has a role in this moment of change. We can all take steps to reduce our consumption, waste and carbon footprint, become more ethical consumers, use ethical banking and, crucially, raise our concerns with our political representatives or get involved in movements for change. Civil society has a responsibility to come together and demand a system that moves from corporate social responsibility to corporate accountability and promotes a fair distribution of the gains of economic activity. We can also call for the implementation of a maximum acceptable bottom-to-top pay ratio for companies, a fair and equitable tax system, responsible regulation, and for action on the imbalances in the international trading system so that gains made through trade are not at the expense of poor people in other countries. It is not new to note that capitalism tends to work in favour of the few rather than the many. However, as the conversation opens up at home about the future of our economic system, surely this is the time to reflect on its impact on people here, those around the globe, and the planet itself. A conversation about what our society values and how to make these a foundation for alternatives, and building a better, inclusive, equitable and sustainable global system would be a good place to start.

{ Capitalism }

{ 8 } Focus

In 2007, many people around the world celebrated the bicentenary of the abolition of the transatlantic slave trade, but modern day slavery, human trafficking and the commodification of people has remained a grim reality. Sex trafficking accounts

for four out of five of all trafficking incidences worldwide. Women are over-represented in this trade, both as victims and as traffickers. Most trafficking is regional or national, carried out by people whose nationality is the same as that of the victim.

Trafficking is not something that only happens “over there”: workshops and information campaigns by a variety of civil society organisations have been bringing the prevalence of trafficking in Ireland to people’s attention. But while these issues may be relatively new to the Irish consciousness, to the small West African country of Sierra Leone – an ex-colony of freed slaves – they are all too familiar.

At a glance, Ireland and Sierra Leone have little in common as far as trade goes. Ireland prides itself on its “smart economy” and is one the largest exporters of pharmaceuticals and software-related products in the world. Sierra Leone, however, is still recovering from the 11 year civil war which ended in 2002, and struggles to manage its main exports; diamonds, rutile, coffee, cocoa and fish. Both countries pride themselves on their beautiful coastlines and friendly people. But hidden from the postcard scenes of sandy beaches and smiling faces there is another reality in which people enter or move around these countries not as tourists, but as goods.

Human Trafficking in Sierra LeoneSierra Leone has a long history of buying and selling human beings. African slavers traded amongst themselves before Europeans began aggressively purchasing and shipping slaves in the mid-1500s in exchange for alcohol, salt, copper kettles and other items. The site of what is now Sierra Leone’s capital, Freetown, was the departure point for over 50,000 slaves who were shipped to Europe and the New World. Conversely, it was also the place that freed slaves from North America were returned to, with the promise of a new life in the British colonial city. Jumping forward to the decade between 1991 and 2002 when a rebel war gripped the country, thousands of child soldiers were forcibly recruited to fight in the war and more were brought to work in the diamond mines.

Supply and DemandJanet Nickel, Technical Coordinator for Faith Alliance Against Slavery and Trafficking, an international NGO working in Sierra Leone, cites a number of factors which fuel the country’s trafficking trade. As with other developing nations, Sierra Leonean industry and life in general is labour intensive, yet people are reluctant to pay for the labour. It is common for children to be sent from the rural provinces to a relative in Freetown to provide domestic help in exchange for the promise of bed and board and sometimes schooling. However the gap between what is promised and what is given to the child is often huge, with

Trade with a Human FaceModern day slavery, and the global trade in people, is prevalent all over the world. Helen Lane explores the problem of human trafficking in Ireland and Sierra Leone.

{ Human Trafficking }

Trafficking in Sierra Leone

Countries of origin Mainly internal but also Guinea, Liberia, Nigeria, Middle East, Europe

Numberofvictimsidentifiedduring2010 35

Governmentalfundsallocatedtotraffickingissues

No budget allocation. NGOs and Inter-governmental organisations are the main service providers

Keyactionstakenbythegovernment Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2005

What needs to happen next? Raise awareness at community level of trafficking and how to identify potential victims

Training of police, social workers and prosecutors on identification and prosecution of perpetrators

Identify and donate a suitable government structure to an NGO for sheltering victimsInclude anti-trafficking in national budgeting

Focus { 9 }

many children effectively subjected to forced labour and treated as second class citizens within the household. The large web of family ties, increased by the high prevalence of polygamous marriage, is a contributing factor to the grey lines between what can be counted as trafficking and what is normal cultural practice within the extended family. Also, the low social status of women and girls further increases their vulnerability to trafficking and leads to their sexual exploitation being seen as normal.

What’s being done?Progress is being made in Sierra Leone, albeit very irregularly and with little prospect of significant funding from its cash-strapped government. Since the enactment of the national Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act 2005, NGOs and international organisations have led the way in community sensitisation. Over 2,000 police officers have been trained on implementing the law and anti-trafficking school clubs have been established. Yet general awareness remains low. Tackling this through further training of social workers and law enforcement officers in the investigation and identification of potential victims, and the legislation governing trafficking must remain a priority. Cases are often dropped due to lack of evidence and the UN Trafficking in Persons (TIP) Protocol is not implemented fully by the police force due to challenges with capacity and the lack of incentives.

Human Trafficking in IrelandThe issue of human trafficking has only recently become prominent in Ireland. Sex trafficking victims tend to come from Eastern Europe, Africa (particularly Nigeria), South America and Asia. People trafficked for their labour are primarily from Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt and the Philippines. There are reports of trafficked children being subjected to prostitution in Dublin, Cork, Kilkenny and Sligo.

SecrecyOne of the ingredients which allows human trafficking to thrive is secrecy. Ruhama, a Dublin-based NGO, cites the difficulty of making contact with sex workers due to the secretive and “off-street” trend in Irish sex trafficking as a key challenge. 99% of sex trafficking victims are involved in “off-street” rather than “on-street” prostitution and thus hard to reach. The prevalence of immigrants in this trade further

complicates matters. Illegal or unregistered persons are more easily trafficked in secret due to their invisible status.

What’s being done?Ireland has had specific provisions on international child trafficking since 1998. In 2008 the Criminal Law (Human Trafficking) Bill was enacted, making all forms of human trafficking illegal as indicated in Article 3 of the UN Trafficking Protocol. It is also a crime to purchase sexual services from a victim of trafficking. The US Department of State Trafficking in Persons Report 2011 classifies Ireland as a Tier 1 country, meaning that Ireland meets the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking. This is not to say that Ireland can rest easy: 78 victims were identified during the reporting period, including 19 children and six Irish nationals, compared to 66 the previous year. 75 suspected offenders were investigated but only two served jail time.

NGOs including Ruhama have been implementing life skills programmes, English and literacy classes and counselling services for victims of trafficking. The Irish government launched the Blue Blindfold Campaign at the beginning of 2011, which aims to create awareness among potential victims of the dangers of trafficking and to reduce demand for trafficking. Between 2009 and 2011, the Immigrant Council of Ireland and Dublin Employment Pact came together under The Dignity Project, to examine best practice services for victims of sex trafficking. The project culminated in an evaluative report published in 2011 which recommended further inter-agency co-operation, improved processes for victim identification and protection and better access to legal aid for trafficking victims.

What next?Firstly, as with any exploitative trading, the unequal power dynamics must be addressed within Irish and Sierra Leonean societies; undoubtedly a long-term undertaking. Secondly, trafficking legislation needs to be clearer, so that trafficking cases can be more readily identified and effectively prosecuted. Thirdly, governments need to intensify efforts to increase the production and sharing of information not only for policy and legislative purposes but to also inform the public. It is only when people realise the extent and nature of this cruel trade that they will be motivated to respond.

Trade with a Human Face

{ Human Trafficking }

Trafficking in Ireland

Countries of origin Eastern Europe, Africa, South America and Asia, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Egypt and the Philippines

Numberofvictimsidentifiedduring2010 78

Governmentalfundsallocatedtotraffickingissues

Almost €433,000 allocated to NGOs working with trafficking victims by 2011

KeyactionstakenbythegovernmentA National Action Plan was developed for the period of 2009-2012

The Blue Blindfold Campaign was launched by the Irish Government in January 2011. It aims to target potential victims and to reduce demand for trafficking

What needs to happen next?Expand NGO and public sector partnership for service delivery

Raise awareness at community level of trafficking and how to identify potential victims

Increase implementation of the Human Trafficking Act

Formoreinfocheck:www.state.gov/g/tip/rls/tiprpt/2011/ www.ruhama.iewww.stopsextrafficking.iewww.unodc.org/.../global-report-on-trafficking-in-persons.html

How the Africa Strategy came aboutIn September 2011, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) launched an important new strategy document, Ireland and Africa: Our Partnership with a Changing Continent, at the first ever Africa Ireland Economic Summit. This strategy comes at a crucial juncture both in Ireland’s economic situation and its commitment to reach the 2015 aid target of 0.7% of GDP, in line with international efforts to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. The Africa Strategy is the result of discussions between DFAT and African leaders and diplomats to identify paths of economic development for African countries and how Ireland can contribute to, and participate in, this process. The new Africa Strategy sets out to develop a more partnership-based approach between Ireland and the continent of Africa, and a shift away from the historical donor/recipient relationship. This shift is already under way globally, and the new strategy document reflects changes in traditional donor relationships towards a potentially more progressive and empowering ethos of engagement with African nations. The strategy sets out to achieve this by increasing trade and political cooperation between Ireland and some African countries. One might wonder, however, whether the strategy also aims to secure access to African markets for Irish business, in the midst of global recession and changing international economic and political dynamics. A number of African nations have some of the largest growth rates in the world, though of course many are starting from a very low base. As a key policy document which will affect and perhaps define Ireland’s relationship with Africa for decades, it is important that those concerned with development and global justice engage with, discuss and debate the Ireland-Africa Strategy. Ireland’s membership of the EU is of crucial importance here, as EU trade policy has been heavily criticised within the development community for undercutting developing economies on their paths to prosperity. At present there is arguably a new global gold rush occurring to secure a foothold in African markets, with Brazil, Russia, India and China challenging the traditional players for a piece of the action.

More than Meets the EyeThe strategy contains four main sections, on Development Partnership, Political Relations, Trade and Economic Relations and Proposals for the Future. Specific priorities are identified as “reducing poverty and promoting equitable and sustainable development, human rights and good governance”.

The Africa strategy notes that “African countries have themselves identified job creation, foreign direct investment (FDI), trade and private sector development, as drivers of future growth and development”. The strategy states that “this presents an opportunity to build on our development cooperation experience”.This may represent a positive shift from the traditional development interventions of bringing ideas and experts from donor countries, towards a more inclusive, participatory and consultative model of development. Some African governments and civil society groups have argued, however, that current European trade policy deprives Africa of the tools to achieve growth and development. They believe that poverty eradication cannot be achieved unless Europe respects African nations’ rights to economic policy space, and might be dubious about some of the more self-interested aspects of Ireland’s new strategy for Africa. In late 2010, for example, the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP)Council of Ministers expressed their concern about European trade policy, saying that “the demand by the EU [...] leaves ACP States with very little scope to support existing or future manufacturing industries, and whereas by exposing their agriculture output to competition with subsidised imports, ACP States are left with almost no flexibility to support the value-addition that is such a fundamental requirement for moving up the development ladder”. They also expressed concern that acceding to European demands could “undermine food security and livelihoods”. The Africa Strategy also notes that the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is committed to addressing governance issues, corruption and inefficiencies in administration, while also trying to support African countries to mobilise domestic resources. As the strategy notes “currently, even with deficiencies in tax collection, domestic revenue raises around ten times more financing for Africa than development assistance. However, the ratio of tax to GDP in some poorer countries is only about half of what it is in the developed world, and tax avoidance remains a major problem”. DFAT also says that it is taking a committed approach to lobbying on issues of concern to African countries, aiming to use its influence with the likes of the World Bank, UN and EU. The strategy also advocates a closer working relationship with the African Union (AU) and the various regional groupings. This is a positive development, which one would hope might lead to Ireland amplifying African concerns internationally, even on sensitive issues such as trade, climate change, debt and taxation.

{ 10 } Focus

{ Africa and Ireland }

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade published a new Africa Strategy last September. Phil Kilgannon examines what the document contains and how it may impact on trade relations between Ireland and Africa.

A Strategy for Africa or a Strategy for Ireland?

Beating the Drum?Since the reshuffling of government departments in March 2011, the promotion of trade has become a Foreign Affairs brief, while trade policy still rests with the Department of Enterprise. The Africa strategy quotes a report from McKinsey Consultancy, noting that “early entry into African economies provides clear opportunities to create markets, establish brands, and shape industry structure”. The strategy notes that “Enterprise Ireland has identified telecommunications, financial services and E-Learning as sectors that merit attention, as well as infrastructure solutions in areas such as energy, water, civic construction, health and education”. Trade in food has also been identified as a growing market for Irish produce in Africa. But the terms on which such trade approaches are taking place however, are not clear, and some development specialists are concerned that Ireland’s trading interaction with African nations could be driven by economic self-interest and a focus on market creation for Irish companies rather than by principles of poverty eradication and sustainable development. Following on from the strategy, the DFAT will establish a single Africa Unit. This will bring together the previously separate Africa Section from Political Division in the Department of Foreign Affairs, and the Programme Desks from Irish Aid, while also taking on responsibility for trade and investment promotion. The intention is presumably to increase policy coherence and suggests a further dove-tailing of strategic political and trade interests into the future. Embassies and consulates throughout the continent are seen as focal points for implementing the strategy. The document notes that the new focus on trade and investment promotion “does not mean that Irish development cooperation, which is a central element of our foreign policy, will become tied to other commercial or economic interests. It will not”. Nevertheless, the channelling of aid through the same actors that facilitate and promote trade links is arguably of concern. Is there a danger of trade interests influencing where aid goes, or countries receiving aid feeling under pressure to offer up new markets to Ireland?

All in All – Could Do MoreThis strategy appears in ways to be progressive and ambitious in tone. There is an awareness of Ireland’s role and how it can do more to influence international bodies, although how much

influence, and on what issues, remains to be seen. The commitment to increased and stronger political dialogue and engagement with African leaders and political blocs is also positive and has much potential. However, unless the Irish government supports African demands for the policy space to make their own economic policy choices, including in some cases protecting their domestic industry, then the capacity of some African nations to move towards economic self reliance could be diminished. Ireland must also identify areas where it can offer a market for African products and services. The balance of trade between Ireland and Africa is heavily skewed in our favour; our exports to Ireland’s African aid programme countries dwarf our imports from them by a factor of 15:1. If we are trying to promote a deeper economic partnership, shouldn’t we ensure Africa sells more to Ireland? Whilst educational and diplomatic exchanges are mentioned, there ought to be more emphasis on how we can reciprocate the trade of goods and services, and genuinely assist and support national economic development plans in tandem with inter regional trade on the continent. A strong economic and political partnership, based on genuine respect and equal power, could reap benefits both for Ireland and for the continent of Africa.

Further InformationIreland and Africa, Our Partnership with a Changing Continent,An Africa Strategy for The Department Of Foreign Affairs and Trade, September 2011. http://www.dfa.ie/home/index.aspx?id=87111

Resolution of the 92nd Session of the ACP Council of Ministers Held in Brussels, from 8th to 10th November 2010.

Evidence and Opportunity: Ireland’s Trade with its Development Programme Countries in Africa. Conall O’Caoimh and Patrick McGauley/Value Added in Africa. 2011. http://www.valueaddedinafrica.org/?p=953

The New Resource Grab, How EU Trade Policy on Raw Materials in Undermining Development. November 2010. http://www.comhlamh.org/Campaign-Raw-Materials-Raw-Deal.html

{ Africa and Ireland }

Focus { 11 }

{ 12 } Focus

{ Cotton }

T he continuing struggle of cotton growers in the poorest regions of the world was highlighted recently during Fairtrade Fortnight. Cotton production in the Global South often involves human rights, social and economic

injustices, predominantly caused by the skewed global trade system which sees governments in developed countries providing large subsidies to their cotton farmers.

Cotton is an important cash crop for millions of small farmers in the Global South. In West Africa around 10 million people depend on cotton for their living. However these farmers are not paid a fair price for the cotton they produce. The cotton plant thrives in dry tropical climates and if grown in areas with low labour costs and in small, manageable plots, farmers in Africa should be well placed to benefit from the world’s ever increasing desire for cotton products.

Unfortunately this is not the case, and millions of people are being kept in poverty by unfair trade rules, specifically subsidies given by the US and the EU to their farmers. State subsidies guarantee a minimum price to cotton farmers regardless of what happens to world prices. This encourages farmers to overproduce. The surplus cotton is then dumped on the world market which drives down the global price, directly affecting African farmers and keeping them in poverty. The US spends $2-4 billion every year on subsidies its cotton producers, while the EU spends around $1 billion annually. If these subsidies were removed, cotton prices would rise by 6 – 14% and could increase the incomes of farmers in West Africa by up to 20%.

Not only does this trade distortion directly impact on individual farmers, it also deprives governments of millions of dollars in export revenue. The big cotton producing countries in West Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Chad and Mali) have been particularly hard hit – even to the point of near collapse of their cotton sector. The governments are estimated to miss out on up to $250 million revenue per year.

Reforming these unfair trade practices has been a central issue at the World Trade Organization (WTO) for over 10 years. The President of the Republic of Mali, Amadou Toumani Touré and the President of Burkina Faso, Blaise Compaore have stated: “Our demand is simple:

apply free trade rules not only to those products that are of interest to the rich and powerful, but also to those products where poor countries have a proven comparative advantage”. However despite increasing pressure from developing countries and global civil society, the US and the EU continue to ignore the issue.

Without any progress in changing these unfair rules, hope has turned to the charitable sector. The Fairtrade Foundation has been working in West Africa for seven years, introducing a minimum price that covers the cost of sustainable production, plus a social premium. Whilst sales of other Fairtrade products, such as bananas and sugar, have stormed the mainstream markets quite successfully, Fairtrade cotton has not yet enjoyed the same success. However it took decades for Fairtrade products such as tea, coffee, and chocolate to become somewhat mainstream, and Fairtrade cotton is relatively young.

With our culture for cheap, throw away fashion, the future seems uncertain for Fairtrade cotton. We need ask our retailers where they are buying their cotton from and to make the switch to Fairtrade. People in Ireland are taking steps for Fairtrade, with sales of Fairtrade products in Ireland growing 16% in 2011, very encouraging given the current economic climate.

As well as switching your purchases to Fairtrade, there are other actions that you can take to help to address the root causes of trade injustice. Why not contact your MEP or TD and tell them why you think the current trade rules are wrong, or get involved in campaigns for trade justice.

Further Information:• Fairtrade Ireland’s Cotton Report 2012: http://fairtrade.ie/assets/files

Fairtrade%20Cotton%20Report.pdf • Fairtrade Foundation ‘The Great Cotton Stitch Up’: http://www.

fairtrade.org.uk/get_involved/campaigns/campaigns/the_great_cotton_stitchup/default.aspx

• ‘Fairtrade shouldn’t all be down to the consumer’: http://www.guardian.co.uk/global-development/2012/feb/27/aid-fair-trade?intcmp=239

Lisa Wilson looks at some of the challenges faced by cotton farmers in developing countries.

Cottoning on to Trade Justice

Cotton plant, Dennis Cowals.

Focus { 13 }

Ireland has historically been described as an agricultural economy whose economic growth throughout much of the last century was built on the back of agricultural exports. According to most recent figures, beef exports alone are worth over €1.6 billion to the Irish

economy annually, and in research carried out by Teagasc, agri-food industries were found to employ 10% of the national workforce. The European Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), the system by which the EU provides financial and other support to its farmers, is up for revision in 2013. What effects would major reforms to the CAP, in light of increased efforts to support the economies of developing countries, have on our indigenous agricultural industries? Should this topic be discussed and debated more in Ireland?

An online search of Irish media quickly reveals that most EU-related stories in the last year covered either the CAP or the Euro. It seems that unless the CAP, and therefore Irish agriculture, is directly affected, there is little coverage of Europe’s trade and agricultural policies. But if EU trade policies that appear to contradict development policies are not brought to the public’s attention by the national media, isn’t there a greater chance that

they could be enforced without any questions asked? One of the primary principles of Ireland’s trade policies highlights the need for “respecting and taking into account the needs of developing countries”. But Irish opposition to the European proposal to increase Brazilian beef imports, for example, seems to be contradictory to this principle.

The EU’s commitment to supporting the economies of the developing world was solidified in the Lisbon Treaty, and the idea of Policy Coherence for Development (PCD) has existed since the Maastricht Treaty of 1992. There have been some improvements in the EU’s trading practices with developing nations; the practice, for example, of dumping surplus agricultural produce in African markets is no longer carried out in the manner or to the extent that it was a decade ago. However critics of the CAP as it is currently structured argue that dumping is still widely practiced; what has changed is the nature of its linkage to the CAP. So despite the commitment to mainstreaming fair trading with developing countries and pro-development approaches across EU policies, this has not translated into a fairer agricultural policy from the EU.

Lucy Watts explores the connections between trade, agriculture and development, and the lack of media coverage and public discussion of this issue in Ireland.

Putting the CAP on Development

{ Agriculture and Development }

Swapping aid for trade in northern Uganda DFID - UK Department for International Development

{ 14 } Focus

{ News }

Over the past number of years, meanwhile, the Irish Farmers’ Association (IFA) has led a protracted and high-profile campaign in Ireland against increases in the import of Brazilian beef into the EU. It has also campaigned against the Free Trade Agreement between the EU and the largest trading bloc in South America, Mercosur (made up of four full members: Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay, and five associate members: Chile, Bolivia, Colombia, Ecuador, and Peru) which will facilitate this increase in trade in beef, and other goods.

Brazil is the EU’s tenth-largest trading partner, with exports to Brazil accounting for more than €21 billion annually. On the other hand, the EU accounts for almost a quarter of Brazil’s total trade. Brazil is the single biggest exporter of agricultural products to Europe, accounting for one eighth of total EU agricultural imports. It is also worth noting that the EU is the biggest foreign investor in Brazil, so an expanding Brazilian economy is beneficial for European and Irish investors.

The IFA has argued that farms and livestock in Brazil are not subject to the same stringent health-checks and standards as their Irish counterparts. They contend that an increase in foreign beef products in Ireland is a two-fold threat to the national agricultural infrastructure: it could potentially bring in disease and infection as well as flooding the market with cheaper, lower quality produce - thereby reducing demand for Irish meat and damaging indigenous agriculture.

The IFA has produced estimates on the potential results of a free trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur. The estimated figures in relation to Brazilian beef calculate that a trade agreement could cost the Irish beef and livestock sector €350 million, as well as inflicting damage on the wider European beef sector amounting to billions of euro. However, according to the farming trade reports, as recently as November 2011 beef prices continue to set new records across Britain and Ireland, with prices up 31% on the same period in 2010, while January 2012 saw a strong return to trade since the Christmas break, with a notable boost to Irish farmers also coming in the wake of the Turkish market being opened up to their beef produce.

The European Commission has emphasised the need for coherence among all of its policies which impact on development in its October 2011 publication regarding the modernisation of EU development policy, entitled An Agenda for Change. However, no examples or indications are given as to how development, trade and agriculture policies, for example, may be altered or reformed in order to ensure EU actions don’t undermine poverty eradication. It is clear that some level of co-ordination is necessary, because reforms to European trade or agricultural policies affect farmers all over the world.

In fact, perhaps farmers in Europe and globally have more

in common than they realise, and could move more towards international co-operation than competition. Representatives of small farmers and agricultural workers in Europe and Africa have called for reforming both the CAP and Free Trade Agreements to place emphasis on sustainable family farming models. They believe this will have more positive impact than focusing simply on increased trade and economic growth, without looking at the impact of such developments on poorer people and small-scale farmers.

Javier Sanchez, a Spanish cattle farmer and member of the global peasant farming organisation ‘Via Campesina’, stated that “The sustainability of the family farming model must be guaranteed through fair and remunerative prices that cover the cost of production. Public regulation of agricultural markets is necessary, but must be flexible for each Member State and for each production sector.” Ibrahim Coulibaly, a farmer from Mali, agrees that reforms and legislation must focus on “the sustainable family farmers... to give priority to our local markets and regional integration, rather than let our prices be dictated by remote and unpredictable international markets”.

This issue, of the complex interlinkages between trade, agriculture and development, does not receive widespread media coverage in Ireland. The question of whether liberalising trade barriers and institutional support in the agriculture sector would substantially diminish our own agriculture industry is difficult to answer definitively. The upcoming CAP reforms proposed for 2013 certainly provide an opportunity for a new emphasis to be placed on alternative methods of earning through agriculture for Irish and European farmers, which would not undermine the livelihoods of farmers in the developing world, such as increased rural development funds, or alternative and green energy grants.

The European Commission (EC), in An Agenda for Change, stresses the importance of coherence among EU policies, but gives no examples of how clashes between development policy and trade policy, for example, might be resolved. It is clear that decisions made in Europe in the name of the Irish people, and which have such a huge impact on developing countries as well as our own nation, need to be debated and discussed more. The mainstream media is an important forum for such discourse to be played out, and surely the time has come for the Irish media to broaden its coverage so as to be more globally aware.

Moreinfo:http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-post-2013/index_en.htmhttp://capreform.eu/http://www.eurovia.org/?lang=enhttp://www.tcd.ie/iiis/policycoherence/concept/agricultural-development.php

“ It is clear that decisions made in Europe in the name of the Irish people, and which have such a huge impact on developing countries as well as our own nation, need to be debated and discussed more”.

Feira, Morocco. Flávio Eiró

Focus { 15 }

{ News }

Fairtrade Fortnight 2012: Take a Step for Trade Justice Thanks to everyone who participated in our Take a Step for Trade Justice Sock Puppet Competition. To celebrate Fairtrade Fortnight 2012, we asked members and supporters to promote the importance of trade justice for cotton farmers, by making a sock puppet and taking a photo of it in an interesting location. We were really impressed and inspired by the entries. Thanks to all of you for your amazing efforts to spread the word about the importance of buying Fairtrade, and of taking action in support of trade justice globally.

Here we display some of the fabulous entries we received.To read more about this issue, see http://www.comhlamh.org/take-a-step-for-trade-justice-for-fairtrade-fortnight-2012.html

The ‘on board fairtrade’ won the first prize

Fairtrade Sock Puppets in Dublin