The early 1990s saw a host of international agreements, from WTO with its TRIPS (Intellectual Property), SPS (Phyto), and also AoA, GATS, GATT, TBT and TRIMs, and related ASEAN and NAFTA trade deals, to Conventions on Biological Diversity (CBD), Chemicals (CC of ILO), Climate (UNFCCC), Desertification (UNCCD), Nuclear Arms (TPNW) and many more. It is interesting to note that these agreements were part of the globalisation chapter of the neo-liberal philosophy, spurred by Reagan and Thatcher at the time. It was realised that the free trade goal for which WTO was established required internationally agreed rules, both within the trade area such as TRIPS and SPS, but also in other policy domains, creating a more level playing field. International cooperation was also deemed necessary to cope with global threats and opportunities, such as those related to climate change and biodiversity.
The governance of these agreements requires Conference of the Parties (COPs) and Governing Bodies (GBs) to implement them, and to adapt them to changing conditions over time. These grew into enormous happenings with, next to the parties (governments), a host of observer-delegations of ‘interested parties’. They organise side events and lobby in the corridors and in some cases also in the negotiation rooms to influence the ongoing negotiations.
What has happened to the positive geopolitical thinking 30 years later? Free trade quite suddenly came under severe pressure now that trade is a major item in the newly developing international relations with growing geo-political tensions. Individual countries and blocks are coming in an opposing rather than cooperating role on trade issues. Along with that, financial support to important UN-organisations is withdrawn. In addition, an already developing process of stagnation of other conventions is now risking of coming to a grinding halt. What happened to the high hopes around jointly dealing with the global threats?
As illustration: the Belèm meeting on climate change did not speak about reducing emissions to slow down the rate of change; global plastic talks in Geneva ended in a deadlock, and the Lima meeting on the IT PGRFA did not speak of conservation and hardly about access to genetic resources. COPs spend most of their time discussing money rather than the topics for which they were primarily established. At the same time, their participation increases to such an extent that measures have to be taken that go directly against the purpose of the meeting. Tens of thousands of additional airmiles do not protect us from global warming; and cutting a major road through the Amazon forest for the participants to reach the Belèm meeting does not contribute to the biodiversity of the Amazon forests.
The global circuses around the international agreements have grown out of hand. It seems to have become an interesting lifestyle and even a living for a large number of government negotiators and a host of NGO and industry lobbyists, travelling the world with – as we see now – amazingly little progress! One may even question whether they all have an equal interest in resolving the main issues at hand or whether some have a personal interest in extending the processes.
Some international NGOs were in Lima with a delegation of 30! Why are so many lobbyists going to the COPs and GBs? I wonder whether focusing on the COPs and GBs is the most effective way of lobbying. The high press and social media coverage forces parties to defend strong positions leading to many delegations getting into a controversy rather than a collaboration mode. Despite all the side events during the meetings, many of which claim to want to bridge the divide, most are attended by participants within the respective bubbles.
The negative vibes that dominate the various international forums are in urgent need of visionary eyes towards alternatives. Such visionaries will have a more difficult task towards breaking the spell compared to the individuals that stood out in the 1980s and 90s and created the collaborative actions defined in the international agreements. Pulling people out of their trenches is more difficult than arguing against the digging of them. Such ideas will not sprout from the COPs where government officials go to speak their positions defined in their capital cities, and similarly, the lobbyists fight for their turf.
Would it not be much more productive to try to bring together stakeholders with diverse positions not during but between the big circus events, somewhat out of the limelight, in a safe space where Chatham House Rules are the rule. The seed sector, consisting of ISF, several NGOs and governments are attempting to do exactly that in what is called the “Seeds for Food Coalition”. The aim is to create a coalition of the willing who are really interested in understanding each other and create solutions to the stalemates. It is not easy to organise such a platform, first because individuals have to be identified who may want to take part – they have to get an OK from their bosses in governments, NGOs and industry organisations, and then there inevitably have to be funds to get together to build the personal relations and trust that will allow to digitally meet in small groups.
The negotiations will not come with creative solutions; intermittent exchanges of ideas where listening is the norm rather than honking. If we are serious about global governance taking steps forward, we need to support such emerging coalitions.
Editor’s Note: Niels Louwaars is a Seed World Europe columnist and Seed Systems Specialist.
