![Sample our Global Development journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5929/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Global-Development.jpg"})
Abstract
This study critically reflects on the involvement of civil society actors in the sustainable development chapters of recent EU trade agreements. It discusses how civil society mechanisms may legitimise the underlying neoliberal orientation of the agreements through co-optation of critical actors. Starting from a critical perspective and drawing on evidence from innovative survey data, qualitative interviews and participatory observations, it concludes that, despite overall criticism, there is no clear evidence of co-optation. While being aware of the risks their participation entail, EU participants take a constructive position. Nevertheless, diverging perspectives between non-profit and business actors risk reinforcing existing power asymmetries.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the participants of the workshop on ‘EU Contributions to Equitable Growth and Sustainable Development in the Post-2015 Consensus’ in April 2016, Leicester University, as well as the editors of this issue, Mark Langan and Sophia Price, and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments.
Notes
1. EESC, Briefing Note to the Attention of Mr. Dumitru Fornea; Montoute, “Civil Society Participation in EPA Implementation”; Van den Putte et al., “What Social Face of the New EU Trade Agreements?”; Altintzis, “Civil Society Engagement and Linkages”; and Harrison et al., “Labour Standards in EU Free Trade Agreements.”
2. Personal interview EU officials, 15 April 2015 and 4 August 2016.
3. Hopewell, “Multilateral Trade Governance,” 37.
4. It comprised close-ended questions about the opportunities and limits of civil society mechanisms and blank spaces for comments. Out of the 126 listed participants, not all of whom participate effectively, 42 completed the survey, generating a response rate of almost 50% of effective participants in the mechanisms.
5. European Commission, Global Europe.
6. The EPAs with the West African States (ECOWAS) and the East African Community (EAC), which are awaiting approval at the time of writing, include very similar provisions to those pertaining to CARIFORUM. Interestingly, the EPA concluded between the EU and the Southern African Development Community (SADC), approved by the European Parliament in 2016, does not refer to any civil society involvement whatsoever.
7. In the near future, such mechanisms will also be created for the agreement with Ukraine. The number of civil society mechanisms is likely to increase exponentially, as some trade agreements have yet to enter into force, e.g. with Ecuador, Singapore, Vietnam, Canada, ECOWAS and EAC; some are still being negotiated (e.g. with the US, Japan, India and the Philippines); and some will be updated (Mexico, Tunisia) or (re)launched (e.g. Mercosur, Indonesia) in the near future.
8. Orbie et al., Civil Society Meetings.
9. Van den Putte et al., “What Social Face of the New EU Trade Agreements?”
10. Montoute, “Civil Society Participation in EPA Implementation.”
11. EESC, Briefing Note to the Attention of Mr. Dumitru Fornea; and see note 8 above.
12. Harrison et al., “Labour Standards in EU Free Trade Agreements.”
13. Altintzis, “Civil Society Engagement and Linkages”; and EESC, Briefing of the EESC Secretariat.
14. See note 11 above.
15. See note 10 and 11 above.
16. Muguruza, “Civil Society and Trade Diplomacy.”
17. Orbie and Van den Putte, “Labour Rights in Peru.”
18. Mosley, “Globalisation and the State.”
19. Brown et al., “International Labour Standards and Trade.”
20. Paul, “Cost of Free Trade”; and Porter, “Trade Competition and Pollution Standards.”
21. Heron, Asymmetric Bargaining and Development Trade-offs,” 336.
22. Chang, Kicking Away the Ladder; Chang, “Policy Space in Historical Perspective”; Dicaprio and Gallagher, “Shrinking of Development Space”; and Rodrik, “Save Globalisation from Cheerleaders.”
23. De Ville et al., TTIP and Labour Standards; Rodrik, The Globalization Paradox; Shalden, “Development for Market Access”; and UNCTAD, Trade and Development Report 2014.
24. European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document; Europe 2020; and Trade for all.
25. Ford, “EU Trade Governance and Policy,” 580.
26. See also Dür and De Bièvre, “Inclusion Without Influence?”
27. Langan and Price, “Extraversion and the West African EPA.”
28. Holden, “Neo-liberalism by Default?”
29. Del Felice, “Power in Discursive Practices.”
30. De Ville and Siles-Brügge, The Truth About TTIP.
31. European Commission, Trade for all, 22.
32. See note 12 above.
33. Adriaensen and González-Garibay, “The Illusion of Choice”; and Vogt, “Arrangements and Labor Rights.”
34. Hencsey in Van den Putte, “Transcripts Social Face Trade,” 10.
35. See note 17 above, 18.
36. Finbow, Limits of Regionalism, 54.
37. Allen, “The North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation,” 127–8.
38. van Roozendaal, “Labour Standards as an ‘Afterthought,” 12.
39. Kröger, Europeanised or European?
40. Luhmann, Legitimation Durch Verfahren, 151–3.
41. Rahnema, “Participation,” 116.
42. See also Jaffee, “Weak Coffee: Certification,” 270.
43. See note 41 above.
44. See also Kurki, “Governmentality and EU Democracy Promotion.”
45. Cooke and Kothari, Participation: The New Tyranny.
46. See note 42 above, 279–81.
47. Cox, “Civil Society Turn of the Millennium,” 4–5.
48. Scholte, “Civil Society and Global Governance.”
49. Meunier, “Trade Policy and Political Legitimacy.”
50. see also note 44 above.
51. See note 26 above, 86.
52. See note 3 above, 37.
53. Ulmer, “Trade Embedded Development Models,” 319.
54. See note 8 above, 26.
55. Coffey, Evaluation DG Trade CSD; Slob and Smakman, A Voice, Not a Vote and see note 26 above.
56. See note 53 above, 318.
57. When participants are asked about the impact of EU trade agreements in general and of the specific agreement in which they have been involved, the same moderately critical tendency emerges.
58. Personal interview participant EU DAG of the EU Peru-Colombia agreement, 7 April 2016.
59. Personal interview European NGO, 19 June 2014.
60. Personal interview European NGO, 1 March 2016.
61. Personal interview European labour representative, 6 December 2016.
62. Burgoon, “European Union’s ‘Fair Trade’,” 647.
63. See note 26 above.
64. See note 25 above.
65. See note 3 above.
66. See note 45 above.