|
|
|
|
 |
                     |
|
Success Stories: Policy Space/Implementation/ Accountability Bridge Initiative International (BI) Issue(s) you addressed?
A) Creating a new political space between globalization stakeholders (mainly multilateral bodies and Civil Society including critical NGOs) B) Better informing citizens on the issues at stake. Current exploratory mediation processes:
What did you do to achieve results? (If applicable, you may want to mention partners here.)
We create ground rules with the participants, trust between individuals, and bridges among civil society forces. We are forceful without proclaiming that change efforts will always succeed. Form “strategic alliances” between players on an issue-by-issue basis. Maintain autonomy from stakeholders. Combine discrete, informal exploratory mediation with public events and impact in the public space. (www.bridge-initiative.org) This work has been done in partnership with Citizens Interact (US). Challenges you faced and/or still face?
Redefine the strategy for Bridge Initiative as we progress. Learn from our failures. Grow without becoming an inflexible institution. BI was born in 2001 after a satellite dialogue between Davos and Porto Alegre. The first phase (2001-2003) was to generate the conditions for dialogue (informal or public). The second phase (2003-2005) was to launch exploratory mediation processes. The third phase (starting now) is to apply approaches beyond negotiation and mediation processes to avoid serious dialogue fatigue. These could include a stronger use of the public space, a strengthening of the positions and messages for civil society, and a stronger lobbying for change within the Powers That Be. Achievements--current and/or anticipated?
• A BI mediation process has produced a joint platform on the reform of the multilateral system, but it has not been launched yet • BI is facilitating a “Citizens Report on Global Democracy” (www.citizensreport.net) between civil society organizations but it is still a work-in-progress. • BI has organized approximately 25 public events, mostly televised; we are seeking a stronger impact through the media • We have started a participatory media (www.madmundo.tv) that places media professionals at the service of citizens. We need to expand it. • As follow-up to OPEN UN (www.openun.org) organized in New York around the UN Summit 2005, BI needs to assess the depth of institutional commitment to dialogue. • Our main achievement/challenge is to contribute to a reconstruction of a more open public space.
Issue(s) you addressed?
1. The expansion of investors' rights and protection What did you do to achieve results? (If applicable, you may want to mention partners here.)
1. Together with other groups and networks, especially in North America and Europe we campaigned successfully to stop the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment from coming to fruition. Also prevented the WTO from embarking on negotiations for a similar investment agreement. Actions: intelligence gathering including getting a draft of the negotiation text by Canadian colleagues; a detailed analysis on the impact on development and the South by TWN; public alert and campaigns in North America and Europe in coalitions that included a wide spectrum of organisations; targeting parliamentarians and congressional representatives; effective use of the internet both for the MAI and WTO campaigns. 2. Together with a small group of NGOs (Edmonds Institute, USA in particular) and networks (ECOROPA, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth) as well as key developing country negotiators, we obtained the Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety. This work brought together scientists, lawyers, activists in a timely manner - research, information dissemination and advocacy, especially with developing countries was key (the Africa Group took a lead) in this achievement. Challenges you faced and/or still face?
1. The same investment provisions are now being imposed in bilateral and regional trade or investment agreements. In addition to removing policy space for regulating foreign investment, these provisions create a right for corporations to sue host governments, which has serious consequences. 2. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety is now in its implementation stage, with negotiations begun on a liability regime. This is heavily resisted by industry and will be a major challenge for our work. At the same time, national biosafety laws and policies in more then 120 developing countries are being shaped and the battle is tough over technology choice and technology assessment, including the right of a society to a GM-free option. Achievements--current and/or anticipated?
1. Although we managed to stop the OECD Multilateral Agreement on Investment and a WTO investment agreement, we have to now work on bilateral and regional agreements. In the last 10 months, a number of countries have been alerted to the dangers of an investment chapter entering these agreements. As the USTR's "fast track" authority for trade negotiations will run out on 31 May 2007, we hope to be able to raise enough awareness to delay and hopefully prevent these agreements from being concluded in some countries. 2. The Cartagena Protocol on Biosafety was a major achievement in obtaining a legally binding treaty that partially regulates a multibillion dollar industry. There is now a need to strengthen the capacity of civil society and governments in the South to have strong comprehensive national policies and laws, and to be able to deal with pressures to approve GMOs for research, development and commercialisation.
Respect for worker rights in Ecuador and the need for labor law reform. This is especially important for the banana sector since Ecuador is the world’s largest banana exporter. Ecuador’s low wages and poor benefits are driving a race to the bottom in the industry that affects hundreds of thousands of banana workers not only in Ecuador but also in Colombia and Central America.
Used advocacy and media to put sufficient pressure on the U.S. government to condition Ecuador's trade benefits and eligibility in the Andean free trade agreement on the government passing labor law reform. The policy work has been led primarily by Human Rights Watch, with whom we coordinate closely.
In response to this pressure, Ecuador has promised several times over to reform its labor code. However, it has not yet done so. This initiative is still "in process."
We’ve succeeded in establishing that Ecuador must reform its labor law to improve respect for basic worker rights. We anticipate that Ecuador will take some modest steps, although no doubt significantly less than our goal.
Issue(s) you addressed?
Redefining the international law regime on investment to ensure it is equitable, transparent and accountable, and expressly made supportive of sustainable development. This involved redesigning the currently imbalanced regime which focuses uniquely on the rights of foreign investors in a closed and antiquated dispute settlement system. What did you do to achieve results? (If applicable, you may want to mention partners here.)
We drafted the IISD Model International Agreement on Investment for Sustainable Development, based on a series of regional meetings in developing countries, regionally-based analysis by developing country partners, expert input, and extensive research. We have since worked with developing countries to help them understand the differences in our approach compared to traditional models. Over 30 developing countries are formally working with our approach now in their development negotiations with the European Union. The EU itself has agreed to use the IISD model as a basis for any investment negotiations that may take place under the Cotonou development process. Additional outreach through formal publication of the model agreements, conferences, and so on is building a stronger base for future development and application of the Model Agreement. Challenges you faced and/or still face?
Achieving buy-in that this is a fundamental issue for achieving sustainable development form developing countries and form civil society groups. -Avoiding the pitfalls of the OECD and WTO processes. - Achieving and now maintaining a direct presence in regional and national contexts where investment policy is being made and implemented in actual negotiations and dispute settlement processes. Achievements--current and/or anticipated?
Over 30 developing states have accepted the IISD Model Agreement as the basis for possible future negotiations with the EU on investment, and the EU has likewise accepted to use the Model Agreement as a starting point. This could radically alter the future negotiation landscape. -We expect other developing countries to likewise adopt this approach in regional meetings slated for 2006. -IISD has also been a successful intervener in investor state arbitration, in the Methanex v. United States case.
Issue(s) you addressed? How macroeconomic policies enforced by the IMF are blocking poor countries from being able to spend more on education, health and economic development. What did you do to achieve results? (If applicable, you may want to mention partners here.) We conducted extensive research based in more than 10 countries case studies exploring in depth the logic of the macroeconomic policies which drive IMF loan programs and explaining why these policies are so problematic. In these we explored why government officials willingly adopt the IMF programs and examined the extent to which there was any “policy space” within the countries for debate about, or consideration of, alternative macroeconomic policies. We partner with education and health activists/advocates as well as well known economists both from the South and North. Challenges you faced and/or still face? The main challenge is to expand the circle of people able to understand and take this issue as part of their specific campaigns and advocacies and mobilize a wider public opinion to challenge these policies. Achievements--current and/or anticipated?
Issue(s) you addressed? Mott funds a campaign to reform export credit agencies to address environmental and social impacts of their investments. One of the key stumbling blocks for reform is key European countries -- Germany and France, in particular. The question was how to use the cohesive regulatory powers of the EU to perhaps move all of the European countries forward.
Initially, Mott and Wallace Global funded European NGOs efforts to undertake a feasibility study on the ability of the EU and the European Commission to actually have some leverage in this policy debate. Once it was determined they could, Mott and WGF funded a group chosen by the other European NGOs involved in the ECA campaign to be the Brussels "face" of the ECA campaign and to coordinate the European NGOs' efforts towards the EU/EC.
EC power is not infinite and depends on EC officials willingness to push member governments. Member governments have used business confidentiality to shield themselves from change. It hasn't stopped forward momentum, but does slow it down. Member governments have fundamental interests in key destructive industries, i.e., large dam construction and nuclear, thus these economic interests can and do trump the political pressure.
|