Sweeping free trade deal poised to benefit companies at the expense of small-scale farmers

A free trade deal that would spur economic growth in the eyes of government officials could also force farmers from traditional livelihoods and disproportionately harm women, say Asian advocacy groups. 

Danish Siddiqui/Reuters
A woman takes a break while picking okra at field in a village in Nashik, India, on June 2, 2017. Farmers, the poor, and especially women could be harmed by a controversial free trade deal that’s being negotiated in India this week, say Asian advocacy groups.

A regional free trade agreement being negotiated in India this week will hurt the livelihoods of farmers, women and indigenous groups and increase conflicts over land as businesses get easier access, rights groups said on Tuesday.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) would create a free trade area of more than 3.5 billion people, bringing together China, India, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and New Zealand as well as Southeast Asian nations.

Talks began in 2012, and it is currently the only mega free-trade agreement being negotiated globally. The 16 nations aim to conclude negotiations by the end of the year.

Campaigners who met in the southern Indian city of Hyderabad, which is hosting the RCEP negotiations, are protesting against the deal, calling it "anti-farmer, anti-women, and anti-poor," and are asking governments to protect their rights.

"Women farmers are going to be the worst affected by this agreement, which will encourage more land grabbing for corporate use and impact on their livelihoods and food sovereignty," said Burnad Fatima of the Federation of Women Farmers' Rights.

"It will take away the traditional livelihood of farmers and indigenous people and force them to seek other jobs," she told the Thomson Reuters Foundation by phone from Hyderabad, where women's groups held a protest against the RCEP on Monday.

Ms. Fatima said the takeover of land for industrial use had a disproportionate impact on women farm workers as men could more easily migrate to find alternative jobs, leaving women to provide for their children and aged parents.

Analysts are increasingly questioning the benefits of free trade deals, which some say have led to job losses, stagnating incomes, growing inequality, and a decline of the public sector, with falling investments in health care and education.

"The RCEP and other trade agreements put businesses first, and give multinational corporations the right to govern at the expense of women's livelihoods and the environment," said Kate Lappin of advocacy group Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law, and Development.

Standoffs between the state and farmers have risen in India as demand for land increases, affecting millions of people.

About 65 million farmers and villagers were displaced in India by highways, mines, power plants, and airports between 1950 and 2005, according to the Geneva-based Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre.

Three-fifths of India's population depend on land for their livelihoods, with an increasing share of women working on the land as falling farm incomes drive men to migrate to find jobs.

The McKinsey Global Institute said employment in Indian agriculture shrank by 26 million jobs between 2011 and 2015.

Government officials say trade deals are key to boosting economic growth and exports.

India's Commerce Secretary Rita Teaotia called for greater inclusiveness to inform the negotiations.

The RCEP's "real success will be measured by its ability to bring prosperity, economic growth, decent living standards, new jobs, and greater business opportunities for people of our region in an equitable manner," she said.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Sweeping free trade deal poised to benefit companies at the expense of small-scale farmers
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today