{"id":1678,"date":"2020-12-22T14:52:41","date_gmt":"2020-12-22T13:52:41","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.convivialthinking.org\/?p=1678"},"modified":"2021-01-05T08:21:35","modified_gmt":"2021-01-05T07:21:35","slug":"eu-trade-policy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/2020\/12\/22\/eu-trade-policy\/","title":{"rendered":"EU trade policy and the \u201cmeta-participation\u201d challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"

by Di\u0101na Potjomkina<\/em><\/p>\n

This contribution is part of a blog series seeking to explore how postdevelopment approaches can inform, infuse and potentially transform the study of EU (development) policies and relationships with the Global South.<\/span><\/p>\n

The ways in which citizen participation is currently organized for \u201cdevelopment\u201d purposes have been questioned by critical observers including the post-development community<\/a> but also by\u00a0 representatives of the mainstream development world<\/a>, such as some of the World Bank\u2019s lead economists<\/a>. Criticism is \u2013 justifiably \u2013 directed at top-down approaches of the donors, ignoring local power relations, and at participatory fora which lack real impact. In too many cases, the search of \u201cfast policy\u201d<\/a> and easy solutions has led to uncritical adoption of one-size-fits-all solutions which can easily fail in foreign contexts, even if they were genuinely successful in their place of origin.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

This blog introduces the concept of \u201cmeta-participation\u201d as a way to radically expand the current, very restricted, mechanisms. More specifically, it focuses on the example of the participation formats established in the framework of the European Union\u2019s \u201cnew generation\u201d free trade agreements, which aim to discuss the \u201ctrade and sustainable development\u201d<\/a> provisions. These provisions are very limited<\/a>, despite the widely recognized negative ramifications<\/a> of free trade. Civil society representatives proactively demand<\/a> both the reorganization of the existing participation mechanisms and a change in the rationale behind the \u201ctrade and sustainable development\u201d chapters. Nevertheless, their meta-participatory initiatives have so far received very limited response<\/a> by the EU. Therefore, this blog argues that, as long as such agreements are concluded, a different approach to involving societies is required \u2013 allowing for incorporating much broader criticism and change.<\/p>\n

The prefix \u201cmeta\u201d means<\/a> \u201coutside the normal limits of something\u201d. Thus, meta-participation is not aimed at discussing specific substantive issues in a given framework<\/a>, but rather at participation itself: defining<\/em><\/a>, improving<\/em><\/a> and systematizing<\/em><\/a> the modalities of participation in order to match them to the needs and demands of the participants. \u00a0Moreover, we can also use the term \u201cmeta-participation\u201d to denote discussion of broader substantive <\/em>aspects in a \u201cmeta\u201d way, namely, through a critical analysis of the established rationales and norms.<\/p>\n

The current contestation going on in trade governance and beyond illustrates the need for meta-participation. For example, protesters against the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) opposed not only the negative impacts of both deals on labour rights, environment and consumer protection, but also the phenomenon of \u201ctrading away democracy\u201d<\/a> through allowing private investors to sue the states and thus eroding citizens\u2019 control over their governments. In other words, they were not satisfied with the extremely limited formal channels for dialogue, which also did not allow for genuine contestation of the substance of the agreements and the very rationale of trade.<\/p>\n

This brings us to our empirical example, the DAGs \u2013 institutionalized consultative bodies comprised by representatives of trade unions, business associations and environmental, sometimes also other, non-governmental organizations. Ten years ago, with the conclusion of the EU-South-Korea free trade agreement, they were introduced as a participatory way to monitor the impact of trade and submit observations and recommendations to the Parties. Both the EU and the partner countries are supposed to create their own DAGs or, in a few cases, designate existing mechanisms to fit this purpose.<\/p>\n

The problem, however, is that the EU\u2019s approach to participation within the trade agreements does not encourage meta-participation by civil society. First, procedurally, the DAGs are the only participatory mechanisms foreseen in the EU\u2019s trade agreements, and are only created at the implementation stage<\/a>, when the text has been agreed upon. Thus, their form is pre-defined<\/em> without consulting civil society, especially in the partner countries. Their shape is also fixed, without meaningful possibilities for assessment<\/em> and improvement<\/em>. A discussion on the future of the TSD chapters in 2017 as well as the follow-up in 2018<\/a> took the form of \u201cnon-paper<\/a>s\u201d by the \u201cCommission services\u201d. There is no dedicated space for regular discussions on how the DAGs should be organized and for civil society feedback. There is also no discussion on how to systematize<\/em> mechanisms for dialogue on sustainable development, despite having an overlap<\/a> among multiple thematically related fora in some cases.<\/p>\n

Second, content-wise, the DAGs can only discuss one specific chapter \u2013 Trade and Sustainable Development, which includes limited labour and environmental provisions. In other words, civil society is expected to focus on an artificially limited aspect of the bilateral trade agenda, while other chapters<\/a> of the agreement also have far-reaching implications. Moreover, discussions on sustainable development are always expected to take into account the opinions of the business sector, which forms a part of the DAGs, and to stay within the overall limits<\/a> of the (very liberal) trade agreements. Hence, it hinders civil society in contesting the overall rationale behind the agreements and proposing measures that might be detrimental to the short-term economic interests.<\/p>\n

Many of the DAGs\u2019 members are not content with the status quo and attempt to move from restricted participation to meta-participation, by reorganizing and expanding the debate. Procedurally, the setup of the DAGs is often criticized<\/a>. Much time in DAG meetings is dedicated not to discussing the narrow impact of trade on labour rights and environmental norms, but rather the modalities of how <\/em>exactly it should be discussed in the first place, which intertwines with broader substantive concerns of civil society. This resistance is not only rhetorical but also manifests in specific actions<\/a>, for instance, by ignoring meetings or to the contrary, pushing for specific working plans and building informal coalitions.<\/p>\n

Substantively, DAG representatives often speak in favour of prioritizing sustainability considerations over trade and strictly sanctioning violations of environmental protection and labour rights. By doing so, they want to challenge the overall rationale behind the EU\u2019s free trade agreements and specifically Trade and Sustainable Development chapters \u2013 that sustainable development can be achieved without substantially compromising on trade liberalization, and that civil society can and should promote sustainability on its own, without governmental support or even in opposition to governmental policies. Indeed, some civil society representatives are generally against free trade. Other DAG members, many of them from business, also seek to change participation mechanisms, making them less structured, because they would like to change the underlying rationale to focus more on free trade \u2013 this, too, is meta-participation.<\/p>\n

Peru is an interesting example in this regard. There, the government chose existing mechanisms in place of a dedicated DAG without actually ensuring that they fulfil this new function, and did not concern itself with environmental and labour violations. Therefore, in 2017, Peruvian civil society circumvented the established mechanisms of participation and submitted to the European Commission a formal complaint<\/a> concerning the violations. It criticized the formally designated participation formats for being overly restricted and dependent<\/a> on the government, demanding more open discussions. Additionally, it established an informal, but very active, \u201cshadow DAG<\/a>\u201d, and pushes for its official recognition by the government. Despite not yet being officially recognized, and the fact that business associations could not be convinced to participate, the DAG proceeds without them<\/a> and continues to monitor the impact of the agreement and advocate for broader participation and sustainability-oriented reforms.<\/p>\n

Meta-participation, in short, is very much in demand. In the case of the EU\u2019s \u201cnew generation\u201d free trade agreements, many civil society representatives in the EU\u2019s partner countries do not feel that \u201cTrade and Sustainable Development\u201d chapters, with their limited provisions, indeed promote sustainable development and not only trade. As the example of the Peruvian shadow DAG shows, if civil society is not satisfied with the existing opportunities, it will often advocate changes within the existing mechanisms or look for ways to circumvent them. So far, the EU has not been particularly responsive to the Peruvian civil society initiative or other meta-participatory pleas. Unfortunately, in doing so, it recreates the 20th<\/sup> century \u201cdevelopmentalist\u201d thinking privileging Western dominance.<\/p>\n

Di\u0101na Potjomkina<\/strong> is a PhD Fellow affiliated to Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Ghent University and the United Nations University \u2013 CRIS, where she works on the GREMLIN project on understanding the impact of multistakeholderism on global and regional governance (GREMLIN: Global and REgional MuLtistakeholder INstitutions). Her research interests include multistakeholderism, the European Union\u2019s external trade policy, and other external policies of the EU.<\/p>\n

The aim of this blog series is to stimulate thinking about different imaginaries of \u2018another Europe\u2019 and alternative role(s) the EU could\/should play, inspired by insights from postdevelopment thinkers. <\/em>The series results from various exchanges and discussions between the contributors since early 2019.<\/em><\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

by Di\u0101na Potjomkina This contribution is part of a blog series seeking to explore how postdevelopment approaches can inform, infuse and potentially transform the study of EU (development) policies and relationships with the Global South. The ways in which citizen participation is currently organized for \u201cdevelopment\u201d purposes have been questioned by critical observers including the … Continue reading “EU trade policy and the \u201cmeta-participation\u201d challenge”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"om_disable_all_campaigns":false,"_monsterinsights_skip_tracking":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_active":false,"_monsterinsights_sitenote_note":"","_monsterinsights_sitenote_category":0,"_uf_show_specific_survey":0,"_uf_disable_surveys":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[4],"tags":[48,28],"class_list":["post-1678","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-speaking","tag-eu-and-post-development","tag-post-development"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1678","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1678"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1678\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1687,"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1678\/revisions\/1687"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1678"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1678"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/convivialthinking.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1678"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}