Starting to unpack the TPP, NAFTA and food sovereignty / Empezando a entender el TPP, el TLCAN y la soberanía alimentaria

Español abajo

By Allison Mountjoy, Community Alliance for Global Justice's Food Justice Project

I recently traveled to New Orleans for the first time and where did I find myself on the first day but the New Orleans food co-op. For my sister, who was traveling with me, it was not surprising when I spent thirty minutes looking through produce and taking pictures of their mission goals. Later we met up with a friend who works in New Orleans at a food hub. Naturally, the three of us spent a good chunk of time discussing what makes a good co-op, the merits of local food, and the designs for working city infrastructure.

Just two days later, and back in Seattle, I was sitting in a Food Justice Project meeting struggling to hold my own in a conversation about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and was struck by experience in New Orleans. Picture three middle-class, over-educated, white women sitting on a porch drinking Guinness, eating guacamole, and criticizing the only food co-op in one of America’s biggest food deserts for not having the buying and distribution power of a Whole Foods. There is something very challenging in that picture and it only got more challenging when I started researching the TPP back in Seattle.

Many of us (myself included) have strong beliefs about sustainable and equitable food systems but so much of what we all, as consumers, are confronted with as information is murky at best. I’m not exactly new to the conversation about the TPP or Free Trade Agreements in general but I felt on such rocky ground trying to talk about it that night in Seattle. My knowledge of the TPP leaned heavily on comparisons to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). I have been on industrial and subsistence farms in Mexico and seen the results of NAFTA first hand in fields and grocery stores. So, it’s understandable that my first instinct on the TPP is to be wary; it is being called ‘NAFTA on steroids’ after all. But what do I really know about the TPP?

• Who has the most to gain? Importers, exporters, distributors, or farmers? Why is most of the public information on this coming from WikiLeaks?
• How will our food safety standards be upheld as the seafood import market is expected to increase?
• If seafood becomes cheaper to import from the South Pacific how will this affect our more local fishermen, shellfish farmers, and economies?
• How will this impact the livelihoods of South Pacific fishers, farmers and their families?
• Trade agreements are supposed to increase economic welfare for both food producers and consumers, so what should our recent experience with NAFTA teach us about this?

The three of us in New Orleans had the luxury of choosing, advocating for, and working on a sustainable food system. But Free Trade Agreements like NAFTA made it possible for us to sit on that porch and enjoy beer from Ireland and avocados from Mexico. So I invite anyone reading this to ask the hard questions, the ones that sometimes make us uncomfortable or maybe challenge our lifestyles.

Somewhere to start:

The New York Times, “The Broken Promise of NAFTA” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/the-broken-promise-of-nafta.html

The Washington Post, “Everything you Need to Know about the Trans-Pacific Partnership” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

Seattle Global Justice, “Reasons Why Food Justice Activists Should Care about the TPP” http://www.seattleglobaljustice.org/2012/11/10-reasons-why-food-justice-activists-should-care-about-the-tpp/#_ftn9

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. “Food Safety Critical Issues in Upcoming Trade Talks”http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23

Por Allison Mountjoy, Proyecto por la Justicia Alimentaria de la Alianza Comunitaria por la Justicia Mundial

Hace poco viajé a Nueva Orleans por la primera vez y a dónde mas fui que al lugar de la cooperativa alimentaria de Nueva Orleans. Para mi hermana, que me acompañaba, no era para nada sorprendente que gastara 30 minutos mirando verduras y sacando fotos de la misión y las metas de la cooperativa. Luego nos encontramos con una persona amiga nuestra que trabaja en Nueva Orleans en un mercado alimentario. Naturalmente, pasamos un buen rato conversando acerca de qué hace a una buena cooperativa, los beneficios de los alimentos locales y los planes para una infraestructura urbana funcional.

Dos días después, de regreso en Seattle, estaba sentada en una reunión del Proyecto por la Justicia Alimentaria tratando de defender mis argumentos en una conversación sobre el Tratado Trans-Pacificio (TPP por sus siglas en inglés) y volvia recordar la experiencia que tuve en Nueva Orleans. Imagínese tres mujeres blancas, de clase media, y de un alto nivel de educación sentadas en un balcón tomando Guinness, comiendo guacamole y criticando la única cooperativa alimentaria en uno de los desiertos alimentarios mas grandes de Estados Unidos por no tener el poder adquisitivo ni de distribución de un Whole Foods. Hay algo desafiante en esa imagen, y sólo se volvió más compleja cuando empecé a investigar el TPP en Seattle.

Muchxs de nosotrxs (incluida yo misma) tenemos opiniones fuertes sobre sistemas alimentarios sostenibles y equitativos pero mucha de la información disponible para nosotrxs lxs consumidores es bastante confusa. Yo no soy nueva en la conversación sobre el TPP o los Tratados de Libre Comercio por lo general, pero no sabía cómo articular esos temas esa noche en Seattle. Mi conocimiento del TPP dependía mucho de comparaciones al Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN, o NAFTA por sus siglas en inglés). He estado en granjas industriales y granjas campesinas en México y he visto de primera mano los resultados del TCLAN en el campo y en los supermercados. Entonces, con razón mi primer instinto frente el TPP es ser suspicaz; su apodo es “TLCAN en esteroides.” Pero, ¿qué sé yo realmente del TPP?

• ¿Quién gana más de este acuerdo? Los importadores, los exportadores, o lxs campesinxs?
• ¿Por qué la mayoría de la información pública sobre este asunto viene de WikiLeaks?
• ¿Cómo se mantendrán nuestros normas de seguridad alimentaria frente a la ampliación esperada del mercado de importaciones de mariscos?
• ¿Si vuelve más económico importar mariscos del Sur Pacífico, como afectará esto a nuestros pescadores, cultivadores de mariscos y economías locales?
• ¿Como afectará a lxs pescadores en el Sur Pacífico, lxs campesinxs y sus familias?  
• ¿Se supone que los tratados de comercio aumentan el bienestar económico para ambos lxs productores y lxs consumidores, entonces qué nos debería enseñar nuestra experiencia con el TLCAN? 

Nosotrxs tres en Nueva Orleans tuvimos el privilegio de escoger, incidir por y trabajar en sistemas alimentarios sostenibles. Pero los TLCs como el TLCAN hicieron posible que nosotrxs nos sentáramos en el balcón disfrutando cerveza de Irlanda y aguacates de México. Pues lxs invitamos hacerse las preguntas difíciles, esas que a veces nos incomodan o que tal vez desafían nuestro estilo de vida.

Para comenzar:

The New York Times, “The Broken Promise of NAFTA” http://www.nytimes.com/2004/01/06/opinion/the-broken-promise-of-nafta.html

The Washington Post, “Everything you Need to Know about the Trans-Pacific Partnership” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/12/11/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-trans-pacific-partnership/

Seattle Global Justice, “Reasons Why Food Justice Activists Should Care about the TPP” http://www.seattleglobaljustice.org/2012/11/10-reasons-why-food-justice-activists-should-care-about-the-tpp/#_ftn9

Congresswoman Rosa DeLauro. “Food Safety Critical Issues in Upcoming Trade Talks”http://delauro.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=406:-delauro-food-safety-critical-issue-in-upcoming-trade-talks&catid=7:2011-press-releases&Itemid=23

The Reality of Free Trade in Mexico

by Sophie Nikitas

The Mayans had a myth to explain the creation of humans: the gods tried three times to make the first human. The first time, they tried to make it out of clay; the next time, out of wood, but neither was satisfactory to them. So they tried one more time; this time, they used corn. Finally they succeeded in creating a human who could work the land and worship the gods. This story is just one example of the importance of corn—not just as food, but as an integral part of Mexican culture and identity. 

Mexico is home to around 60 varieties of native corn,
which are under threat from GMO's. Transnational
companies like Monsanto are favored under NAFTA.

I witnessed this importance first-hand when I traveled to Mexico in January with Witness for Peace. I went as part of a program that examined how free trade between Canada, the US and Mexico affected the region of Oaxaca in particular. My colleagues and I learned about the effects of NAFTA, particularly via trade between US and Mexico, and how different those effects were from what the US government portrays them to be. In particular, I saw how free trade is affecting the production of, and access to corn. 

The US government largely focuses on the benefits stemming from the free trade agreement. For example, one of NAFTA's main goals was originally to improve the Mexican economy by giving farmers, a large portion of the workforce, the opportunity to sell their goods on a larger, international market. Tied in with that was the aim to encourage Mexico's "development", particularly by giving agricultural workers access to affordable crops and allowing them to work in more lucrative and less labor-intensive sectors of the economy. In 1994, with those goals in mind, the US, Canadian and Mexican governments lifted tariffs on non-domestic products sourced from the other countries, and free trade between the three began. 

This year marks the 20th anniversary of NAFTA. Mexico is certainly different from before the agreement, but not in the way that was anticipated. In reality, NAFTA's policies have made Mexico more dependent on the economy and resources of the US, and the result is that many of the Mexicans who were predicted to benefit have become less self-sufficient than before. Corn farmers have been particularly hard-hit. Despite being considered "poor" by the Mexican and US governments, mostly due to the lack of expendable capital, Mexican corn farmers were actually fairly self-sufficient before the agreement. Their ability to grow their own food provided a certain degree of food security and control over the local markets. However, policies aimed at promoting "development" have made it more challenging for many farmers to grow corn and other essential crops, in favor of promoting other sectors of work. 

In order to encourage the "development" (and I keep putting this word in quotes because US standards for development are not synonymous with improvement in food security and general quality of life), the Mexican government began importing cheap corn from the US in order to push corn farmers to seek work in other sectors. It's important to note that, although NAFTA includes provisions against government subsidies of crops, which would disrupt the price competition between producers across the countries involved, the US continues to subsidize the production of corn. This allows US farmers to export their corn to Mexico at such low prices that Mexican farmers cannot compete, and, as a result, must find a different source of immediate income. 

The option that the Mexican government presented was encouraging farmers to move to cities for work, particularly in "maquiladoras". Maquiladoras are factories within "Free Trade Zones" that provide cheap labor for companies operating transnationally. Despite the supposed benefits of this type of work, maquiladoras provide neither the financial or bodily security that many Mexican farmers had when they produced their own crops.

Maquiladoras multiplied in Mexico with NAFTA. They are criticized for serious environmental pollution, dangerous working conditions, low pay, and discriminatory practices like only hiring young women, forcing them to take pregnancy tests (and then firing them if they're positive), and preventing union organizing.

In order to get contracts with large companies, maquiladoras must offer the lowest production prices. This is called "race to the bottom", when factories try to offer prices low enough that companies will use them instead of sourcing their manufacturing to factories in India, for example. Because of this desire to cut costs, maquiladoras are well-known for their dangerous conditions. Employees often work long hours  without proper training, equipment or protection from chemicals or machines that they use. On top of that, they receive a fraction of an equivalent US salary for their work. 

NAFTA's defenders argue that maquiladoras have created 800,000 new jobs for "poor" Mexicans, but in reality maquiladoras are a much worse option than typical corn farming. The lack of safe conditions, financial security and the autonomy to grow and access one's own food are not part of public statements, nor the two million agricultural jobs that were lost in order to encourage work in maquiladoras. As a result, there are many people in Oaxaca, as well as throughout Mexico, fighting against these policies.

One of several fair trade certifications.

Our group met with several Oaxacan cooperatives: one that I learned the most from was called Michizá. This cooperative works with indigenous coffee farmers in order to sell their products on the fair trade market, both in Mexico and the US. One of their main barriers, they told us, was the cost of obtaining a free trade certificate. When the goal is to get the profit to the producers, the cost of obtaining fair trade certification for US markets can impede that process. As a result, it is much more expensive to sell that coffee in the US, where there is more demand for coffee than in Mexico, where it is often less expensive.

The most striking thing about the presentation was the recurring theme of how difficult it was for farmers to get compensated for their work when they sold on the international market, even though that route is so encouraged and supposedly easier under NAFTA. This seems to be the biggest challenge in free trade: expanding opportunities and new markets for producers while ensuring that they reap those benefits. I think that working within larger systems, like corporations and larger fair trade certification agencies, makes it easier to forget who produced the product we are consuming. On the other hand, working on a smaller scale—maybe local, maybe a smaller company—can ensure that consumers like me know where our products are coming from, and that, just as I am getting something from the producers, they are receiving back from me. 

The Human Face (and Price) of Trade

The Witness blog series is back!

This month, Witness for Peace, in close collaboration with coalition partners in the United States and partners on the ground in Colombia, Nicaragua, Honduras and Mexico, is hosting our second annual blog series – this one focused on the changing system of international trade and its effects on communities both small and large.

When most people hear the word “trade,” their eyes already start to glaze over, visions of tariffs and collective bargaining agreements dancing in their hands. This is understandable – at first, trade doesn’t exactly seem like the most exciting topic, tied up as it is with broader issues of economics, national sovereignty, imports/exports and labor rights. However, trade has implications that reach far beyond the entrances to ports and meeting halls – really, if you’ve ever bought anything or had a job, trade has affected you in some way. Over the course of the next month, we’ll be using this space on the Witness blog to explore the many ways trade changes lives, livelihoods and environments, from small-scale farmers in the U.S. Midwest to port workers in the Colombian city of Buenaventura.

The topics of free trade, unions, workers’ rights and economic policy have become increasingly important throughout the Americas since the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) went into effect in 1994, creating a trade bloc between the U.S., Canada and Mexico, and opening the door for subsequent economic policies and practices that prioritized corporations and multinational companies over unions and workers themselves. Since then, such agreements have spread across the region, with the U.S. signing free trade accords with countries including Chile, Peru, Colombia and the majority of Central America.

Though supporters in governments and the business world insist that such agreements help boost competition and encourage sales, the truth is that the few individuals and corporations at the top are those that truly profit, while laborers, farmers and small businesses see few of the benefits and are often left worse off than they were before the agreement took effect. Such agreements lead to lower prices on imported goods that  leave local businesses unable to compete without incurring significant losses; allow much greater influence for multinational corporations; facilitate widespread third-party contracting; and encourage extensive outsourcing in a "race to the bottom." These effects are well-documented, and some communities are refusing to simply accept them as inevitable. Last August, Colombia’s farmers began a national strike that quickly spread across the country and reached the largest cities, primarily as a response to the negative effects the U.S.-Colombia free trade agreement, signed in 2011, had on their communities and their livelihoods.

Well-researched critiques and comprehensive analyses of such agreements are now more important than ever, with the U.S. on the verge of signing the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which would become the most far-reaching trade agreement in the hemisphere and grant a staggering amount of rights and privileges to corporations and business interests, potentially even overriding national sovereignty and laws in some cases. Through this blog series, we will examine the effects and lessons learned from current trade agreements and labor practices throughout the Americas, and hope to shed some light on the potential regional and global impact of the TPP as well as bring more attention to what’s happening in our own backyards and in thousands of other cities and towns across the continents.

Check back here every weekday for bilingual posts highlighting some of the effects free trade agreements and changes in trade and labor policy have had on individuals and communities throughout the Americas, and how some of our writers have seen those changes reflected in their own lives and the lives of others. Feel free to take a look at our 2013 Drug War blog series as well.