FYI
Debjani
--------- Forwarded message ----------
From: ann leonard <vikram!aleonard@essential.org>
Dear Friends in South Asia,
Attached is an important statement about the Multilateral Agreement on
Investments,
an international agreement which gives unprecedented rights to
Multinational Corporations and has significant potential to undermine
all
our campaigns on environmental protection, economic justice, labor
rights
and other pro-people initiatives.
Please take a minute to read this statement and if your group can sign
on,
email Chantell Taylor at ctaylor@citizen.org. I notice that there are
very
few signatories from South Asia, so please distribute this widely among
your friends and colleagues so voices from your part of the world are
also
heard.
In Solidarity,
Annie Leonard
JOINT NGO STATEMENT ON THE MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT (MAI)
NGO/ OECD Consultation on the MAI
Paris: 27 October, 1997
updated: 3 February, 1998
INTRODUCTION
As a coalition of development, environment and consumer groups from
around
the world, with representation in over 70 countries, we consider the
draft
Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) to be a damaging agreement
which
should not proceed in its current form, if at all.
There is an obvious need for multilateral regulation of investments in
view
of the scale of social and environmental disruption created by the
increasing mobility of capital. However, the intention of the MAI is not
to
regulate investments but to regulate governments. As such, the MAI is
unacceptable.
MAI negotiations began in the OECD in the Spring of 1995, more than two
years ago, and are claimed to be substantially complete by the OECD.
Such
negotiations have been conducted without the benefit of participation
from
non-OECD countries and civil society, including non-governmental
organizations representing the interests of workers, consumers, farmers
or
organizations concerned with the environment, development and human
rights.
As a result, the draft MAI is completely unbalanced. It elevates the
rights
of investors far above those of governments, local communities,
citizens,
workers and the environment. The MAI will severely undermine even the
meagre
progress made towards sustainable development since the Rio Earth Summit
in
1992.
The MAI is not only flawed in the eyes of NGOs, but conflicts with
international commitments already made by OECD member countries:
The MAI fails to incorporate any of the several relevant
international
agreements such as the Rio Declaration; Agenda 21; UN Guidelines for
Consumer Protection (1985); the UNCTAD Set of Multilaterally Agreed
Principles for the Control of Restrictive Business Practices (1981);
and
the HABITAT Global Plan of Action.
The MAI fails to comply with OECD commitments to integrate
economic,
environmental and social policies (1).
The MAI removes responsibilities on transnational enterprises
which were
previously agreed by the OECD under the OECD Guidelines for Multilateral
Enterprises 1976 (2).
The exclusion of developing countries and countries in transition from
the
negotiations is inconsistent with OECD policy on development
partnerships
(3).
Problems with the MAI stem both from the broad restrictions it places on
national democratic action, and from its failure to include sufficient
new
systems of international regulation and accountability.
As the MAI stands, it does not deserve to gain democratic approval in
any
country. All the groups signing this statement will campaign against its
adoption unless changes, including those cited below, are incorporated
into
the body of the MAI.
SUBSTANTIVE CONCERNS
As drafted, the MAI does not respect the rights of countries - in
particular
countries in transition and developing countries - including their need
to
democratically control investment into their economies.
The level of liberalisation contained in the MAI has already been
opposed as
inappropriate by many developing countries. However, non-OECD countries
are
under increasing pressure to join.
There are differing investment and development needs of OECD and
non-OECD
countries. In particular, the potential for economic diversification and
development of the developing countries - especially the least developed
countries - and countries in transition would be severely undermined by
the
provisions of the MAI. The standstill principle would cause particular
problems for countries in transition, many of which have not yet
developed
adequate business regulation.
The MAI's withdrawal provision would effectively bind nations to one
particular economic development model for fifteen years; prevent future
governments from revising investment policy to reflect their own
assessment
of the wisest economic course; and force countries to continue to abide
by
the agreement even if there is strong evidence that its impact has been
destructive.
The MAI contains no binding, enforceable obligations for corporate
conduct
concerning the environment, labour standards and anti-competitive
behaviour.
The MAI gives foreign investors exclusive standing under a legally
binding
agreement to attack legitimate regulations designed to protect the
environment, safeguard public health, uphold the rights of employees,
and
promote fair competition.
Further, citizens, indigenous peoples, local governments and NGOs do not
have access to the dispute resolution system, and subsequently can
neither
hold multinational investors accountable to the communities which host
them,
nor comment in cases where an investor sues a government.
The MAI will be in conflict with many existing and future international,
national and sub-national, laws and regulations protecting the
environment,
natural resources, public health, culture, social welfare and employment
laws; will cause many to be repealed; and will deter the adoption of new
legislation, or the strengthening of existing ones.
The MAI is explicitly designed to make it easier for investors to move
capital, including production facilities, from one country to another;
despite evidence that increased capital mobility disproportionately
benefits
multinational corporations at the expense of most of the world's
peoples.
WE CALL ON THE OECD AND NATIONAL GOVERNMENTS TO:
With regard to substantive concerns:
1) Undertake an independent and comprehensive assessment of the
social,
environmental, and development impact of the MAI with full public
participation. The negotiations should be suspended during this
assessment.
2) Require multinational investors to observe binding agreements
incorporating environment, labour, health, safety and human rights
standards
to ensure that they do not use the MAI to exploit weak regulatory
regimes.
Ensure that an enforceable agreement on investor responsibilities takes
precedence over any agreement on investor rights.
3) Eliminate the investor state dispute resolution mechanism and
put into
place democratic and transparent mechanisms which ensure that civil
society,
including local and indigenous peoples, gain new powers to hold
investors to
account.
4) While none of the undersigned NGOs object to the rights of
investors to
be compensated for expropriation by a nation state, there are adequate
principles of national law and jurisprudence to protect investors in
circumstances such as these. The current MAI exceeds these well accepted
concepts of direct expropriation, and ventures into areas undermining
national sovereignty. We therefore request that OECD members eliminate
the
MAI's expropriation provision so that investors are not granted an
absolute
right to compensation for expropriation. Governments must ensure that
they
do not have to pay for the right to set environmental, labour, health
and
safety standards even if compliance with such regulations imposes
significant financial obligations on investors.
With regard to process concerns:
1) Suspend the MAI negotiations and extend the 1998 deadline to
allow
sufficient time for meaningful public input and participation in all
countries.
2) Increase transparency in the negotiations by publicly releasing
the draft
texts and individual reservations and by scheduling a series of on
going
public meetings and hearings in both member and non member countries,
open
to the media, parliamentarians and the general public.
3) Broaden the active participation of government departments in
the
official negotiations beyond state, commerce and finance to a broader
range
of government agencies, ministries and parliamentary committees.
4) Renegotiate the terms of withdrawal to enable countries to more
easily
and rapidly withdraw from the agreement when they deem it in the
interest of
their citizens. Developing countries and countries in transitions which
have
not been a party to the negotiations must not be pressurised to join the
MAI.
CONCLUSION
The current MAI text is inconsistent with international agreements
signed by
OECD countries, with existing OECD policies, and with national laws to
promote sustainable development. It also fails to take into account
important work carried out by investment experts and official bodies
such as
the UNCTAD "development friendliness" criteria for investment agreements
(4)
and other work on investor responsibility.
If the OECD policy statements are to have any meaning, the above
provisions
must be fully integrated in the MAI with the same legal force as those
on
economic liberalisation.
Given our grave concerns about the MAI and the unrealistically short
time
frame within which the MAI is being concluded, we look to the OECD and
its
member governments to fundamentally reconsider both the process and
substance of the draft agreement. We call on the OECD to make a specific
and
detailed written response to our concerns. We also call on the OECD to
avoid
talking publicly about its consultations with NGOs without also talking
about the serious concerns raised at those consultations.
Finally, we will continue our opposition to the MAI unless these demands
are
met in full.
Notes:
(1) OECD Ministerial Communique May 1997
(2) OECD Code of Conduct for Multinational Enterprises, Paris 1992 (3)
"Shaping the 21st Century: The Contribution of Development Cooperation",
OECD 1997. (4) UNCTAD, World Investment Report 1997; UNCTAD Expert
Meeting,"
Development Friendliness Criteria for Investment Frameworks", 1997.
Non-governmental organisations supporting this statement include:
Alternate Forum for Research in Mindanao (AFRIM), Inc
Alternatives in Action!-GA
American Nurses Association-DC
Animal Welfare Institute-DC
ANPED
Association for Sustainability & Equity in the Americas
BC Green Party Boulder Independent Business Alliance-CO
California Fair Trade Coalition
Canadian Environmental Law Association
Carolina Interfaith Task Force on Central America
Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)-DC/Switzerland
Center for Sustainable Systems
Center of Concern-DC
Central and Eastern European Bankwatch Network
CEECAP-Poland
Coalition for Forests-NY
Comboni Missionaries, Justice and Peace Resource Center
Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS)
Council of Canadians
Defenders of Wildlife-DC
Democratic Reform News-NY
Democratic Socialists of America-DC
Epicenter-CO
Ecoropa-France
The Edmonds Institute
Equipo Pueblo
Fair Trade Coalition of Colorado
Federal Land Action Group - NY
Fifty Years is Enough-DC
Friends of the Earth England, Wales and Northern Ireland
Friends of the Earth International (FoEI)
Friends of the Earth United States-DC
FOE Argentina
FOE Australia
FOE Austria
FOE Bangladesh
FOE Chile
FOE Costa Rica
FOE Curacao
FOE Denmark
FOE El Salvador
FOE France
FOE Germany
FOE Grenada
FOE Haiti
FOE Indonesia
FOE Luxembourg
FOE Macedonia
FOE Malaysia
FOE Netherlands
FOE Nigeria
FOE Switzerland
Focus on the Global South
Forum Environment and Development
Global Exchange
Global Help Project
Guideposts for a Sustainable Future
Green Party of Rhode Island
Hightower Radio-TX
Howard County Friends of Central America & the Caribbean-MD
ICDA
Interhemispheric Resource Center
International Law Center for Human, Economic and Environmental Defense
(HEED)-CA
International Forum on Globalization-CA
International Study for Gandhian Studies (ISGS)-NY
Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy-MN
Institute for Food and Development Policy
Kansas Farmers Union
Kingston Anti-MAI Campaign-Canada Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Center
Labor Rights Task Force, Nicaragua Solidarity Committee- IL
Long Island Progressive Coalition-NY
McKeever Institute of Economic Policy Analysis
NABU
National Family Farm Coalition-DC
Native Forest Council
Netherlands Committee of the IUCN
Northern Santiam Watershed Council-NY
Pacific Environment & Resources Center -CA
Peace Action of San Mateo County California
Peace and Justice Center of Vermont
Pennsylvania Fair Trade Campaign
Pennsylvania Consumer Action Network
People's Forum 2001, Japan
Pesticide Action Network North America
Presbyterian Church USA-DC
Progressive Review
Project Biodiversity in Public Forests Network
Project South: Institute for the Elimination of Poverty &
Genocide
Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch-DC
Pure Food Campaign-MN
Rainforest Action Network-CA
Reform Party of Texas
Rural Vermont
SAWTEE, Kathmandu
Sierra Club of Canada Sierra Club of USA
Student Environmental Action Network Montana
Sustainable Alternatives to the Global Economy
(SAGE)-CA
Swiss Coalition of Development Organisations
Texas Fair Trade Campaign
Third World Network
Tools for Transition
Tourism Industry Development Council-CA
University of Victoria Students' Society
Western Ancient Forest Campaign-DC
Wetlands Preserve
Witness for Peace
Women's Environment & Development Organisation (WEDO)
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF)
World Development Movement
World Economy, Ecology and Development Association (WEED)
World Information Transfer Worldview
World Wide Fund for Nature International (WWF-I)
-- Ann Leonard
-- Debjani Das Project - Decentralised Cooperation Liaison Committee of NGDOs to the European Union Telephone - 32 2 74338788. Fax: 322 735 0951 Http://www.oneworld.org/liaison