View previous stories
	Ongoing conflicts continue to intensify food insecurity by UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO)   8 December 2016   Civil conflict and weather-related shocks have severely stressed food security in 2016, increasing the number of countries in need of food assistance, according to a FAO report. The new edition of the Crop Prospects and Food Situation report, released today, highlights 39 countries that are in need of external assistance for food.   While the outlook for global cereal supplies is improving due to generally favourable growing conditions for crops, the legacy of recent droughts persists, as do the negative effects of a spate of conflicts.   Agricultural forecasts suggest robust grain harvests are on the horizon, but hunger will likely intensify in some regions during the lean seasons before the new crops have matured.   In Southern Africa, where El Niño effects sharply curtailed food production in 2016, the number of people requiring outside assistance from January through March 2017 is expected to significantly increase compared to the same period a year ago. Child stunting rates are "significantly high" in the most troubled areas, notably Madagascar, Malawi and Mozambique, the report notes.   In some regions, inadequate stocks of cereal and legume seeds due to two consecutive poor harvests may limit plantings. FAO and governments are implementing agricultural support programmes to improve access to key farming inputs.   Conflicts cast a long shadow on food security   To facilitate humanitarian response planning, the report identifies the primary causes of local food crises. These range from exceptional shortfall in food production and widespread lack of access - due to low incomes, high prices or disrupted distribution networks - to the impact of conflicts on local food security conditions.   Civil conflicts and their consequences, including refugee movements that are burdening host countries such as Cameroon and Chad, are cited in 21 of the 39 countries. Widespread conflict can lead to the loss and depletion of households'' productive assets, as in Central African Republic, and to security concerns that hinder farming activities, as in South Sudan.   In parts of South Sudan, improved harvests are likely to have only a short-lived effect as ongoing conflict has reduced the ability to engage in agriculture, posing extra risks for the most vulnerable communities.   Continuing civil conflict in Syria has led to 9.4 million people requiring food assistance. This year''s wheat production is estimated to be around 55 percent below its pre-crisis level.   The ongoing conflict in Yemen has likely increased the number of food-insecure people from the 14.2 million people assessed in June, the report said.   The recent escalation of conflict in Iraq is triggering a widespread internal displacement.   Acute food insecurity affects more than 8 million people in Afghanistan and their numbers are likely to increase with the return of around 600,000 refugees from Pakistan before the end of 2016.   The number of food insecure people in Nigeria is above 8 million and is projected to increase to 11 million by August 2017. The ongoing conflict in northern states curtailed plantings, while the sharp depreciation of the Naira currency has raised domestic food prices and affected regional trade as more Nigerian cereals are exported while fewer livestock are imported.   Droughts and weather effects linked to El Niño triggered significant crop shortfalls in 2016 in several countries. Maize output in Southern Africa decreased sharply, severely stressing food security conditions.   Poor harvests triggered sharply higher prices for staple maize in Malawi, where 6.5 million people are expected to be food insecure during the upcoming lean period.   On a positive note, with El Niño over, preliminary estimates point to a 27 percent increase in maize plantings for South Africa''s 2017 crop, by far the region''s largest producer.   While much of Asia benefited from robust food production in 2016, led by a recovery in India, the impact of long-running conflicts in several Near Eastern countries continues to severely depress agricultural production despite generally beneficial weather conditions for staple grain crops.   In Latin America and the Caribbean, expectations of a production rebound in Central America in 2016 are welcome, following the drought-affected outputs in the previous year, while the 2017 planting season in South America is off to a favourable start after a reduced 2016 crop mostly due to droughts in Bolivia, Brazil and Paraguay.   The 39 countries currently in need of external food assistance are Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Democratic People''s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Guinea, Haiti, Iraq, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mali, Mauritania, Mozambique, Myanmar, Nepal, Niger, Nigeria, Pakistan, Papua New Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Swaziland, Syria, Uganda, Yemen and Zimbabwe.   http://bit.ly/2h6WUYY http://www.fao.org/emergencies/en/ Visit the related web page
	Foreign corporations have used Investor-state dispute settlement to change sovereign laws by Inter Press Service, agencies   8 Dec. 2016   Multinationals launch 50 lawsuits worth $31b, by Thuy Ong.   A new report has found that corporations have launched 50 lawsuits, worth at least $US31 billion, using secret international arbitration tribunals against 11 countries in the Asian region.   The countries affected are currently negotiating the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) agreement.   RCEP is being negotiated between 16 countries in the Asian region, including China, Australia, Japan, India and members of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).   RCEP is being negotiated in Jakarta this week and includes an investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) which allows foreign investors to sue states and claim compensation if they deem their investments "are adversely affected by the introduction of regulatory or policy changes in the host state".   That number of lawsuits could balloon if the RCEP is signed, because the proposal would grant corporations an exclusive right to bypass domestic legal systems.   "When the state loses an ISDS case or settles a dispute with an investor, governments can be forced to foot the bill with public money," the report observed.   "In other words, ISDS effectively allows foreign investors to pass their investment risks on to citizens and public budgets."   The report titled "The hidden costs of RCEP and corporate trade deals in Asia", is a joint briefing by Friends of the Earth International, Transnational Institute, Indonesia for Global Justice, Focus on the Global South and Paung Ku.   The report found there has been exponential growth in the number of cases filed against RCEP countries, from six cases between 1994 and 2003, to 27 between 2004 and 2013. From 2014 to now, there have been 17 lawsuits.   "The secrecy surrounding investor-state arbitration means these figures could be just the tip of the iceberg," said Sam Cossar-Gilbert, trade campaigner at Friends of the Earth International in a statement.   "The huge sums of money involved leave no doubt about the unacceptable burden that this dangerous mechanism puts on countries across Asia.   "If the RCEP trade deal goes ahead as planned, we expect to see an increase in multi-billion dollar claims - and citizens being forced to foot the bill."   The report showed there was one dispute in Australia relating to the country introducing plain packaging for tobacco products launched by Philip Morris.   The tobacco giant''s total claim was for $US4.2 billion, equivalent to public health spending for 1.5 million people for a year, the report said.   The Australian High Court rejected the domestic challenge and the international arbitration case was eventually dismissed.   "Despite the ultimate failure of the case for Philip Morris, it illustrates the risk of ISDS when it comes to the state''s ability to enact legislation for the benefit of its citizens," the report stated.   "The threat of having to spend billions in lawsuits puts a chill into other countries decisions to move forward with similar legislation. New Zealand for example, delayed the introduction of plain packaging in response to the Philip Morris claim."   Growing opposition worldwide   There is growing worldwide opposition to ISDS mechanisms, and the report found that RCEP countries have been sued for measures taken to protect public health, adjust corporate taxes, promote industrialisation and review contracts acquired through allegations of corruption.   "Investors are already using investment agreements to raid cash-strapped public budgets in Asia," said Cecilia Olivet, researcher at Transnational Institute in a statement.   "It is time to reject a privatised justice system that can undermine crucial regulation in the public interest."   Around 68 per cent of cases filed against RCEP countries have been initiated by European-based investors, the report found.   Médicins sans Frontières earlier this month had reiterated its concerns about the RCEP agreement, saying harmful intellectual property provisions involved would increase market monopolies for pharmaceutical corporations and delay or block access to affordable generic medicines.   Dec 2016   ISDS Corporate Rule of Law, by Jomo Kwame Sundaram. (IPS News)   Foreign corporations have used Investor-state dispute settlement to change sovereign laws and undermine national regulations.   Investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provisions in ostensible free trade agreements (FTAs) and bilateral investment treaties (BITs) have effectively created a powerful, privileged system of protections for foreign investors that undermine national law and institutions. ISDS allows foreign corporations to sue governments for causing them losses due to legal or regulatory changes.   A law unto themselves   ISDS cases are decided by extrajudicial tribunals composed of three corporate lawyers. Although ISDS has existed for decades, its scope and impact has grown sharply in the last decade. As ISDS has been written into over 3,000 BITs and numerous FTAs, the opportunities for ISDS claims are huge and growing.   Originally justified as necessary to protect foreign corporate investments abroad from nationalization or expropriation by governments controlling national judiciaries, foreign corporations have used ISDS to change sovereign laws and undermine national regulations. As there is no cap on the amount of awards, claims – and awards – can be huge.   The system is secret and dominated by unaccountable corporate lawyers. As international arbitration is typically not transparent, pursuing such claims can avoid the public scrutiny associated with mounting legal challenges in courts. Lack of transparency means that lawyers acting as arbitrators or advocates in one case can be unnamed investors in other cases, as nobody would ever know.   ISDS proponents claim that the outcomes of cases are uncertain, and corporations only win about a quarter of the cases they pursue. But this does not include settlements agreed to before the conclusion of arbitration proceedings from which corporations often secure handsome benefits of some kind or other.   ISDS arbitration is certainly far more attractive to foreign investors who would otherwise shy away from pursuing claims in other national courts, particularly against host governments.   Recent ISDS decisions have involved significantly greater delegation of authority to arbitrators in interpreting and applying the agreements concerned, without any meaningful review or opportunity to appeal the arbitrators’ decisions.   There is no guarantee that tribunals will interpret treaty provisions in ways consistent with governments’ understandings of what treaty obligations mean.   ISDS also allows foreign investors to challenge the actions of officials at any level of government – local, state, and federal – as well as conduct by any branch – executive, legislative and judicial. A measure entirely consistent with domestic law is no defence against liability.   ISDS thus empowers private arbitrators to decide on cases that are essentially matters of domestic constitutional and administrative law, but are presented as treaty claims.   With ISDS, foreign investors will be able to ask a panel of appointed international arbitrators to determine ‘proper’ administrative, legislative and judicial conduct while bypassing national judicial institutions. Since many legal decisions involve matters of interpretation, non-national judges deciding on ‘national’ issues will make a great deal of difference.   It greatly helps foreign investors to be able to bring their claims against a government before international arbitrators, and not domestic courts.   Further, there is no provision for meaningful appeal; a tribunal’s decision will probably stand even if it gets the law or facts wrong. ISDS decision makers are not required to be independent and impartial with the high ethical standards expected of most judges.   If a domestic court makes a decision inconsistent with legislative intent, the legislature can correct it by passing new legislation, but it has no power to override an ISDS decision.   Procedural rules and remedies are significantly different, depending on whether an investor claim is through ISDS or domestic courts, with significant consequences for a government’s exposure to claims and liability. Also, similar sounding legal texts may be interpreted very differently in different contexts; thus, the law is not the same in effect, even it may look similar.   The threat of supranational adjudication has many, often complex legal and policy implications. ISDS will inadvertently dilute constitutional protections, weaken the judiciary, and displace national legal systems with a system of private arbitration devoid of key checks and balances found in most national judicial systems. Investors seem to have persuaded many politicians to support their ISDS promotion efforts.   In short, ISDS is an extreme, discriminatory and unnecessary form of supranational adjudication that undermines national law and institutions.   While public and private insurance and other forms of foreign investment protection are already available to protect legitimate investor rights and interests, it is doubtful whether ISDS is even needed for the situations it was originally designed for.   Already, India, Indonesia and Ecuador have advised their treaty partners that they are considering ending their BITs because of ISDS.   To reduce abuses, investors could be required to first prove discrimination in national courts before being allowed to proceed to ISDS arbitration. Alternatively, national courts could exercise judicial review over ISDS awards. Also, arbitrators could be required to be independent of the ISDS process, with set salaries, security of tenure and no financial ties to litigants while investor status for ISDS claims could be defined more strictly.   * Jomo Kwame Sundaram was United Nations Assistant Secretary-General for Economic Development.
	View more stories