FOCUS□ LABOURRIGHTSANDTHE GLOBALECONOMY Understanding the impact of trade liberalisation on worker rights: why the proposed NAMA deal is bad for workers No the benefits matter neo-liberal of how concluding convincing drummay the those current sound who on DOHA beat the the neo-liberal drummay sound on the benefits of concluding thecurrent DOHA traderound, workers willbe worstoff. The effect oftradeliberalisation does notonly bring aboutmuchmisery forsmallscalefarmers, workers andthepoor,itundermines andinmany instances reducesmanyof thehard-won rights gainedbyworkers. Since the launchof the roundin 1999,the roundhas all butbeen developmental. In contrast to manyoftheprinciples enshrined within the DOHA Agenda,negotiations at the World Trade Organisation (WTO) are about market access and trade liberalisation. Verylittleon development is talkedabout,withdevelopment seen as aid fortradeor helpingdeveloping and least developed countriesmanage the impact whenworkers lose theirjobs due to a sudden reduction oftariffs inparticular industries. Likemanyintherestofthedeveloping world, SouthAfrica is no exception.Our development challenges ofhighandpersistent unemployment, stubbornly highlevelsof poverty and growing unequaldistribution ofwealthremains one ofthe highest amongst developing countries. SouthAfrica has an unemployment rateof40 percent whenyou includemanyofthoseworkerswhohavegivenup looking for workandcan no longer find employment opportunities. Thisis extremely highcomparedto anystandards. On thepoverty front, justunderhalfofourpopulationcanbe considered as living underthepovertyline .Poverty and unemployment is exacerbated withgrowinglevels of inequality not only amongstincomeearnersbut those who have accesstobasicservices, suchas water, electricity, health,education.Today we continueto find many households livingin the formerrural Bantustan areas of SouthAfrica nothavingany access to running water, electricity or sanitation facilities. Thereare also manytownship householdscloserto thecitycentres who findthemselvesina similar poverty trap. Withan ailingeconomysuchas SouthAfrica, thecontinued threat from theglobalfinancial crisis willonlymakematters worse.Already signs are starting to emergeof the impactthismay haveon therealeconomy as economicrecession beginstosetwithin Europeand theUS. To makematters worse,theongoing attempt at theWTOtopushfora tradeagreement basedon theexisting proposalswillcertainly place further strain on a country thatcan no longerafford to have a high unemployment rate, continued poverty andpeoplewhocannotaccessbasicservices . Themorerecent attempt fora tradedealbythe globaltrade bodyinJuly 2008resulted initstemporary collapseand failure. Anyagreement concludedon theproposedtextin Agriculture and Non-Agricultural Market Access (NAMA)would adversely impact on theeconomicandsocialfabricofdeveloping and poorercountries. With the failedtalkscontinuing to stagger along,theJuly meeting allowedforsomerealignment ofglobal forces,with China, Brazil, India, Indonesia, Argentina and SouthAfrica playing a moreleadingand dominant roleininfluencing tradetalks. An agreement on industrial goods (NAMA)in July 2008forexamplewouldhavemeantsignificant adjustment cost fordevelopingcountries suchas SouthAfrica. A recent report from theWorld Bankestimates thatprojectedwelfaregainsfroma concluding theDoha Roundwouldbe less than$16 billion (0.2 percentof developing countrynational income).Thismeanstheestimated globalgains in 2015 to be $96bn,withonly $l6bn going towards thedeveloping world.Inanyeventthese gainsare expectedto benefit a fewdeveloping countries suchas Braziland China. In contrast industrial tariff losses (NAMA)is expected of at least $63bn, includingreal declinesintherelative valueofexports. Is itreallyinourbestinterest torushintoconcluding the roundwhenthereareso fewgainstobe made? In reality the proposalon NAMAechoes the sentiment on welfaregainsand losses reflected above. For South African industries, it would havemeantan averagetariff cutof41 percent on verysensitive tariff linessuchas clothing, textile, footwear, automobiles, fabricated metals,furniture , fishing and manyothers; withclothing, textiles ,automobiles, rubberand metalsfacinga higherthan average cut. The sensitivities and development concernsof developingcountries suchas ourshave been brushedaside,and the already meagre flexibilities giventous havebeen offset and erodedfurther bypilingon moreand moreconditions onthescopeanduse oftheflexibilities insensitive economicsectors. Manyofthesesectors arelabourintensive and are extremely sensitive to suddenchanges.Our governments tradeliberalisation strategy in 1996 impactedseverelyon the clothingand textile industry as wellas theelectronics industry. Inthe clothing sectorforexample,our WTO commitmententailed a tariff reduction inexcessofwhat was requiredby 2006.The sectorhas now lost 126,000jobs sincethestart of theliberalisation process.The consequencesofanynew proposal on tariff liberalisation would be no different to whatworkerscontinueto face in the clothing and textileindustry: massivelayoffs combined withcasualisation and in today'sworking envi- ...continued onpage 28 The proposed text would adversely impacton the economic and social fabricof developingand poorercountries RUDI DICKS isDirector of the National, Labour, Economic, and Development Institute (NALEDI), South Africa Page 13 Volume 16Issuel 2009 INTERNATIONAL union rights FOCUS □ LABOURRIGHTSANDTHE GLOBALECONOMY continued from page 13- ■■ ronment informalisation is synonymous withan erosionofbasicworker rights. Forthoseworkers employedwithin theclothingand textile industry it is notunusualto be facedbythe'racetothebottom'. In manyexamplesacrosstheglobewherelabourintensive sectors havebeenaffected bytrade liberalisation, we havenotonlyseen thousands ofjobs beinglost butsignificant increases intheinformalisation of work.Wherelimited or new workopportunities exist, manyworkers returning tothelabourmarketreturn as casuals,fixed term contract employees or working through a labourbrokerand in some instance beingemployedundertheguise ofa cooperative toavoidpaying minimum wages and minimum conditions ofemployment. For manyworkers, thereis no benefit from trade liberalisation -onlyjoblossesorworking as a casual.The 'raceto thebottom' meansifyou wantto have workitcan neverbe permanent...