Las cifras fueron elaboradas a partir de propuestas políticas anteriores de organizaciones internacionales, centros de investigación, la academia y movimientos sociales. Algunos de esos números son, en general, conservadores y más fáciles de implementar. El cumplimiento de los compromisos de justicia y equidad puede, para los fines de estas propuestas, exigir impuestos más elevados, más cancelaciones de deuda y más gasto fiscal. Otras de las propuestas son más ambiciosas y apenas se encuentran en etapas embrionarias de desarrollo. Estas propuestas reflejan los órdenes de magnitud de fondos potenciales, más que un programa de acción específico.

Debido a las bajas tasas de interés y a la falta de capacidad en la economía, hasta el FMI ahora concuerda en que los Gobiernos ricos que controlan su propia moneda pueden aumentar el gasto sin tener que aumentar los impuestos. Esto implica un alejamiento de la falsa narrativa de austeridad de los últimos diez años de que las cuentas siempre tienen que estar en equilibrio. Por lo que puede concluirse que los Gobiernos ricos deberían gastar lo que es necesario hoy, mientras elaboran y coordinan nuevos impuestos que en el futuro podrán disminuir la desigualdad y recuperar el poder adquisitivo que está en manos de los ricos. Sin embargo, esta capacidad ilimitada de invertir en la salida de una crisis no ha estado abierta a los países del Sur Global. El legado reciente de las políticas neoliberales y el historial de desigualdad colonial ha hecho que muchos países de bajos ingresos sean incapaces de administrar en forma adecuada sus sistemas económicos y de salud, lo que reafirma la necesidad imperiosa de adoptar las reformas que señala este informe.

Por último, recaudar fondos no alcanza para lograr un cambio sistémico en nuestra injusta economía mundial. Para "reconstruir mejor", habrá que movilizar algo más que dinero. Este informe apunta a ejemplos de cambio estructural que podrían comenzar a desplazar el punto de equilibrio del poder, alejándolo de una pequeña élite financiera y acercándolo a una economía con controles más democráticos. El objetivo del informe es presentar cifras agregadas y, al mismo tiempo, destacar ejemplos de la vida real que puedan servir como modelo para un futuro que trate a la humanidad con equidad y dignidad. En definitiva, la cifra de 9,457 billones de dólares al año extraída de estas propuestas revela que el avance hacia un mundo con justicia depende del poder político, más que de la existencia de recursos financieros.

El presente informe plantea seis gastos necesarios para combatir la pandemia y permitir la transición a una economía justa.³ Los dos primeros abordan los costos inmediatos de la pandemia, y los cuatro últimos refieren a los costos de impedir el colapso climático, cumplir los objetivos de desarrollo sostenible y pagar reparaciones por la esclavitud y el cambio climático. Sin embargo, el costo de construir un mundo mejor después de la COVID-19 no se limita solo a ellos. Estos gastos tampoco pueden compensar los siglos de inequidad estructural y el legado colonial. La pandemia amenaza con sumergir en la pobreza a 500 millones de personas⁴ y en la pobreza extrema a entre 71 y 100 millones de personas⁵ adicionales, respectivamente. Eso incrementará el total de mujeres y niñas que viven en la pobreza extrema a 435 millones, y las proyecciones muestran que ese número no volverá a los niveles anteriores a la pandemia hasta 2030.⁶ La mitad de los trabajadores y las trabajadoras del planeta corren el riesgo de perder sus empleos.⁷ Si bien estos costos económicos inmediatos son devastadores, no vienen acompañados de una factura monetaria evidente y, por lo tanto, no se incluyen en las sumas totales a continuación.

Perú, México, Argentina, Bolivia y Guatemala son solo algunos de los países de América Latina que están siendo impactados por el régimen de protección de inversiones en medio de la pandemia del Covid-19. Inversores extranjeros que amenazan con demandas ante tribunales de arbitraje internacionales por las medidas estatales tomadas para mitigar los efectos de la pandemia. Árbitros que se niegan a aceptar los pedidos de los Estados de posponer arbitrajes en curso, y que los obligan a desembolsar millones en momentos donde los fondos públicos tienen destinos más urgentes. La crisis actual pone una vez más de manifiesto las perversas consecuencias del sistema de solución de disputas inversor-Estado y la necesidad urgente de salirse del mismo.

América Latina y el Caribe sufren desde hace décadas las consecuencias de haber firmado más de 470 tratadosde comercio y de protección de inversiones que han derivado en casi 300 demandas conocidas de inversores extranjeros contra Estados de la región ante tribunales de arbitraje internacional. Sin embargo, la pandemia de COVID-19 y la crisis que desencadenó, podría exacerbar los riesgos del régimen de protección de inversiones al desatar una nueva ola de demandas.

“Los tratados de protección de inversiones ya no se consideran remedios de último recurso, sino herramientas importantes en el arsenal de los inversores.” bufete de abogados Simmons and Simmons law firm

Esto seguro nos va a generar seis acciones de arbitraje en el CIADI [el Centro de Solución de Disputas Inversor-Estado del Banco Mundial]”” declaró la presidenta del Ositránorganismo del gobierno de Perú que supervisa la inversión en infraestructura de transporte de uso público, cuando el Congreso peruano aprobó a principios de abril una ley que suspendía el cobro de peajes nacionales durante la emergencia suscitada por la crisis del coronavirus. El objetivo de esta medida era facilitar el transporte de bienes o trabajadores esenciales en un momento en que muchos peruanos habían perdido sus ingresos.

Bufetes de abogados internacionales no han tardado en cuestionar las medidas soberanas adoptadas en América Latina y el resto del mundo, y justificar cómo podrían dar lugar a demandas internacionales de arbitraje, para las cuales, por supuesto, ofrecen sus servicios especializados. Por ejemplo, un abogado del bufete Alston & Bird (minuto 49:20) cuestionó la proporcionalidad y la necesidad de la medida adoptada por Perú. Afirmó que el Gobierno podría haber adoptado otras medidas menos perjudiciales para proteger la salud pública, como introducir alternativas tecnológicas al cobro de peajes en persona.
Las advertencias sobre posibles demandas se empezaron a materializar en junio cuando se confirmó que varios concesionarios de peaje habían notificado su intención de iniciar arbitraje internacional.

“Es razonable predecir que las medidas tomadas por los Estados, en particular por el Perú, generarán más de una controversia”, Pablo Mori Bregante del bufete de abogados GST LLP

Con el objetivo de “contener a los concesionarios”, el Poder Ejecutivo peruano inició en junio una acción de inconstitucionalidad para revertir la ley que suspende el pago de peajes. En su justificación sobre esta medida, la Ministra de Economía de Perú, María Antonieta Alva, dejó en claro que busca evitar “las contingencias que vamos a tener en el Centro Internacional de Arreglo de Diferencias Relativas a Inversiones (CIADI). No solamente hay posibilidades de que nos denuncien, no solamente nos va a costar todos los procesos, los abogados. Vamos a tener que pagar indemnizaciones”.

Las amenazas de demandas de arbitraje generalmente buscan, y en muchos casos logran – llevar a que los gobiernos se auto-censuren de avanzar legislación para evitar ser demandados por millones de dólares, efecto que se conoce como “enfriamiento regulatorio”. Las empresas avanzarán o no con las demandas dependiendo de la decisión de la Corte Constitucional en Perú.

México fue el segundo país de América Latina en recibir amenazas de demandas de inversores por medidas tomadas en relación a la crisis de COVID-19, en este caso por imponer restricciones a la producción de energía renovable luego de una caída en la demanda de electricidad causada por la pandemia.

Entre el 29 de abril y 15 de mayo, momento crítico para el país por el incremento acelerado de los casos de COVID-19, el gobierno emitió dos resoluciones que suspenden la entrada en operación de plantas de energías renovables y limitan la generación por centrales eólicas y fotovoltaicas.

Estas medidas afectan principalmente a grandes empresas multinacionales energéticas europeas - como son las españolas Iberdrola, Naturgy o Acciona, la italiana Enel y la francesa Engie- y a empresas canadienses y estadounidenses que invirtieron en el sector de energía renovable en México aprovechando contratos leoninos. El gobierno argumentó que los cambios introducidos, que dan mayor poder al gobierno para controlar el mercado energético mexicano, eran necesarios durante la pandemia y están destinadas a “mantener la seguridad e independencia energética” y garantizar “el suministro eléctrico”, especialmente de servicios esenciales como el sistema de salud.

La reacción casi inmediata de varios de los bufetes internacionales especializados en inversiones, como DLA Piper, fue la de alertar que “los inversores extranjeros involucrados en proyectos de generación de electricidad eólica y solar en México pueden considerar sus derechos y posibles recursos en virtud de los tratados de inversión aplicables”. El reconocido árbitro español Bernardo Cremades también avizoró que “La protección interna de sus empresas puede llevar a AMLO a enfrentar cuantiosas demandas […] es previsible que los inversores acudan a los mecanismos de arbitraje de los tratados de protección de inversiones”. El bufete Crowell & Moring determinó que las medidas “ponen en peligro las inversiones extranjeras en proyectos de energía renovable” y se adelantaron a ofrecer sus servicios especializados en arbitraje internacional a inversores en México.

Algunas de las empresas españolas afectadas ya comenzaron a preparar demandas de arbitraje internacional contra el gobierno de México. Así mismo, empresas canadienses, entre ellas ATCOla compañía de infraestructura en energía mas grande de Canadá, también advirtieron que las medidas del gobierno podrían violar el TLCAN 2.0.

Entre las empresas que se preparan a demandar resaltan tres características. Primero, varias tienen amplia experiencia en usar el arbitraje de inversiones contra Estados, incluso contra el mismo México, para obtener ganancias por inversiones fallidas. Por ejemplo, la canadiense ATCO demandó en 2018 a la empresa estatal de electricidad -Comisión Federal de Electricidad (CFE)- con base en un contrato ante la Corte de Arbitraje Internacional en Londres cuando se suspendió la construcción del gasoducto Ramal-Tula por la oposición social al proyecto. Por su parte, Naturgy tiene abierta una demanda contra Colombia por 1600 millones de dólares y ganó 2000 millones de dólares en un arbitraje contra Egipto y se prepara para lanzar nuevos arbitrajes contra Argelia y Nigeria, entre otros. La española Iberdrola también ha utilizado el arbitraje de inversiones contra Bolivia y Guatemala.

Segundo, en general se trata de grandes empresas multinacionales con portafolios de inversiones en combustibles fósiles, a pesar de que en México tengan inversiones en el sector de energía renovables. Es más, en algunos casos, como el de la gigante Iberdrola, han sido enemigos históricos de las energías renovables.

“Las grandes empresas eléctricas, bajo el paraguas del capitalismo verde, ven en el sector de las renovables una oportunidad para diversificar sus estrategias de acumulación de capital.” OMAL

Tercero, tienen un historial ampliamente documentado de violaciones de derechos humanos y sociales, las cuales se mantienen impunes dada la falta de mecanismos de sanción. Por ejemplo, Iberdrola, quien controla una gran parte del mercado eléctrico mexicano, ha sido acusada de corrupción, criminalización y desplazamiento de las comunidades locales y de no haber realizado una consulta previa, libre e informada, violando el convenio 169 de la OIT. Detallados informes sobre los parques eólicos en Oxaca muestran como la empresa ha evitado pagar impuestos y ha firmado contratos en detrimento de los campesinos que aceptaron rentar sus tierras.

El 22 de mayo, en medio de la pandemia, Argentina no pudo pagar parte de su deuda pública con un grupo de bonistas internacionales, entre ellos BlackRock -la empresa estadounidense de gestión de inversiones más grande del mundo. Este “default” ocurrió en el medio de una dura negociación con los acreedores para reestructurar USD 66.000 millones en deuda, medida considerada necesaria incluso por el Fondo Monetario Internacional. El gobierno y los bonistas sellaron un acuerdo el 4 de agosto de 2020, en el cual Argentina cedió pagar 54,8 dólares por cada 100 de deuda. Este monto es muy cercano a los 56 dólares que demandaban los principales tenedores de bonos liderados por BlackRock, y lejos de la oferta inicial de Argentina de 39 dólares, dejando en claro que las presiones de las empresas surtieron efecto. 

Parte de estas presiones vinieron en forma de amenazas de demandas internacionales. White & Case es el bufete de abogados estadounidense que asesora al grupo de tenedores de bonos argentinos liderados por BlackRock. El 17 de junio emitieron un comunicado con una amenaza directa: “nuestro Grupo está considerando todos los derechos y recursos legales disponibles”. Entre las posibilidades de recursos legales está la de iniciar una demanda de arbitraje de inversiones. 

La posibilidad de un caso de arbitraje de inversiones de tenedores de bonos contra Argentina no es descabellada. White & Case no es cualquier bufete, forma parte de la élite de bufetes especializados en arbitraje de inversiones, habiendo participado en por lo menos 73 casos inversor-Estado llevados adelante en el CIADI. Pero aún más relevante es el hecho que White & Case fue el bufete que representó a 60.000 tenedores de bonos italianos que demandaron a la Argentina (el caso Abaclat) en 2007 al no aceptar la reestructuración de la deuda después de la crisis del 2001. Este bufete aseguró en 2016 un pago de 1.350 millones de dólares para los 60.000 bonistas. 

Otros bufetes de abogados especializados en arbitraje internacional, como bufete de abogados Dechert, no dudaron en avizorar “disputas inminentes en relación a bonos soberanos”.

“Las protecciones ofrecidas por el derecho internacional de inversiones pueden proporcionar a los acreedores con un recurso contra un Estado [...] que incumple o reestructura su deuda soberana, incluso cuando estas medidas sean necesarias o inevitables”, bufete de abogados Dechert law firm⁴

Aún cuando Argentina haya evitado por el momento una de estas “inminentes” demandas, la amenaza de los bonistas es una táctica intimidatoria efectiva y probablemente contribuyó a que el gobierno cediera en otorgar una oferta más favorable.

El gobierno de Bolivia, mientras atraviesa la peor crisis política de la última década, no solo tiene que atender la crisis sanitaria y económica que desató la pandemia de COVID-19, sino también tiene que dar la pelea en cuatro demandas de empresas privadas ante tribunales internacionales de arbitraje donde hay millones de dólares en juego.

“Los cuatro juicios de arbitraje internacional suman entre ellos más de 3 mil millones de dólares en jurisdicción arbitral internacional, lastimosamente no fueron suspendidos pese a la pandemia”, José María Cabrera, procurador General del Estado de Bolivia

En este contexto, el gobierno de Bolivia pidió la suspensión del arbitraje en dos de los casos abiertos relacionados con minería: con la empresa suiza Glencore y con el inversor estadounidense Julio Miguel Orlandini Agreda. Sustentó estos pedidos argumentando “causas de fuerza mayor.derivadas de la actual pandemia de COVID-19” (p.2) y que las diversas medidas aplicadas por los países en respuesta al COVID-19 habían hecho “virtualmente imposible” (p.5) entregar los documentos requeridos. También explicó que “las medidas relacionadas con la cuarentena han mermado severamente su capacidad para preparar” (p.3) los documentos que le corresponde presentar.

Los árbitros en ambos casos rechazaron la suspensión de los casos. Los árbitros del caso Glencore, por ejemplo, indicaron que el tribunal “no considera que exista base suficiente para suspender este procedimiento” (p.6). En el caso Orlandini Agreda, los árbitros estimaron que la suspensión no era necesaria ya que en otros casos “el procedimiento no se ha suspendido ni se ha determinado que fuese imposible continuar” (p.9).

“El Tribunal no puede ignorar los efectos de la presente crisis sanitaria global y, por otro lado, el Tribunal también debe […] adherirse a sus obligaciones de evitar retraso”, árbitros en el caso Glencore vs Bolivia

El gobierno argumenta que, con su decisión, el tribunal “ha impedido a Bolivia de ejercer su derecho a la defensa” (p.8).

La empresa eléctrica estadounidense TECO, representada por el bufete de abogados White & Case, se encuentra en una batalla legal para efectivizar el cobro de un laudo arbitral favorable de 21 millones de dólares contra Guatemala. Se estima que, al día de hoy, contando los intereses, ese laudo valdría 36,5 millones de dólares. today.

El pago del laudo arbitral a TECO tiene que ser confirmado en las cortes de Estados Unidos. Guatemala, habiendo declarado un estado de calamidad nacional a raíz de la pandemia, pidió la suspensión del pago, alegando “el pago del mismo agravaría la situación económica del país en un momento en el que tiene que hacer frente a la pandemia del Covid-19”. Sin embargo, un juez estadounidense del Distrito de Columbia de los Estados Unidos rechazó el pedido de Guatemala.

Para Guatemala, el segundo país más pobre de Latinoamérica, donde el sistema hospitalario ha colapsado a raíz de COVID-19, los millones en juego son significativos. Por ejemplo, el gobierno podría con ese dinero pagar por 108.000 camas extra para pacientes con COVID-19.⁴ Así también este monto equivale a 24% del presupuesto adicional que recibió el Ministerio de Salud para lidiar con la crisis sanitaria actual.⁵

Las presiones a la que se ven sometidos los países de la región para lidiar con la crisis sanitaria, social y económica, resultado de la actual pandemia, no ha sido un impedimento para que los inversores extranjeros den tregua a los Estados. Por el contrario, la llegada de nuevas demandas de arbitraje no ha cesado durante la pandemia. 

Desde principios de marzo 2020 hasta fines de julio, se han registrado al menos 16 nuevas demandas de arbitraje a nivel mundial, de las cuales nueve fueron contra países de América Latina y el Caribe – tres demandas se dirigieron contra Colombia, dos contra México, dos contra Perú y dos contra Panamá. 

Aunque estás demandas no están directamente relacionadas a medidas estatales correspondientes a la pandemia, desvían fondos y esfuerzos desde donde más se necesita: combatir la pandemia de COVID-19 y sus consecuencias socio-económicas. 

Desde principios de la pandemia, bufetes internacionales de abogados empezaron a especular sobre posibles demandas de arbitraje internacional relacionadas a las medidas estatales resultado del COVID-19. El bufete Ropes & Graypor ejemplo opina que "para las empresas con inversiones extranjeras, los acuerdos de inversión podrían ser un instrumento poderoso para recuperar o prevenir las pérdidas resultantes de las medidas gubernamentales relacionadas con el COVID-19".

En decenas de avisos escritos a sus clientes corporativos, los bufetes de abogados identifican medidas tomadas por gobiernos, entre ellos latinoamericanos, que podrían originar demandas invocando las amplias protecciones de los acuerdos de protección de inversiones vigentes.

"Esta nueva generación de reclamos va a poner ‘bajo la lupa arbitral’ los límites del estado para regular y gestionar situaciones de crisis, la proporcionalidad y razonabilidad de las medidas adoptadas”, Aníbal Sabatersocio del bufete Chaffetz Lindsey

Por ejemplo, Colombia, Honduras, Paraguay y Argentina han adoptado medidas que proveen apoyo directo a los usuarios de agua, tales como suspender la desconexión del servicio por falta de pago durante la crisis. El bufete Hogan Lovells alertó que esas medidas “podrían alentar a los inversores extranjeros a recurrir a las protecciones que figuran en los tratados de inversión”..

Por su parte, Chile y Ecuador han facilitado la emisión de licencias obligatorias que buscan evitar que las patentes sobre medicamentos y equipos puedan ser monopolizados por una empresa. Sin embargo, los abogados de arbitraje en materia de inversiones consideran (webinario minuto 6:48) que las medidas de los “gobiernos (...) de obligar a los fabricantes a que vendan medicamentos a precios muy reducidos o de quedarse con la propiedad intelectual o difundirla a terceros sin permiso” constituyen una expropiación y podrían dar lugar a demandas en virtud de tratados de inversión.

“Argentina le mostró al mundo en 2002 cómo una crisis económica y política puede ser un catalizador para los reclamos de arbitraje de inversión. Una vez que agregamos una pandemia global a la mezcla, parece probable que veamos una nueva ola de reclamos de inversión, especialmente a la luz de las recientes medidas gubernamentales”, Aníbal Sabater, socio del bufete Chaffetz Lindsey

La actitud general de los bufetes se ve representada por la declaración de Alex Yanos del bufete de abogados Alston & Bird, quien sentenció (webinario minuto 1:01:36) “algunos Estados terminarán por perder casos ante inversores, más allá de que pueda parecer injusto”. “some states will end up losing cases to investors, notwithstanding the way that it might come across as unfair.”

Desde donde se mire, los tratados que protegen a la inversión extranjera podrían agravar la situación de crisis en los países de América Latina y el Caribe. Como mínimo agregan una preocupación y presión extra, que es lo último que los gobiernos necesitan en este momento.

Principalmente, las demandas de arbitraje internacional privarán a los países de los recursos necesarios para combatir el virus y la crisis socio-económica que lo acompaña. En momentos donde toda la atención debería estar enfocada en lidiar con una situación sin precedentes, los gobiernos latinoamericanos se ven obligados a desviar su atención y destinar recursos escasos para atender las amenazas de demandas a razón de las medidas tomadas para lidiar con las crisis de COVID-19. Tienen también que aceptar la indiferencia de los árbitros y jueces a los pedidos de suspensión de procesos arbitrales y pagos a inversores de dinero que se necesita para atender prioridades inmediatas.  

El bufete de abogados Garrigues en un reciente boletín plantea que “cabe preguntarse si el COVID-19 es un nuevo respiro para el arbitraje de inversión por la ola de reclamaciones que derivarán del mismo o si, por el contrario, será su estocada final al desincentivar a los Estados de incluir este mecanismo de resolución de disputas en sus tratados”..”  

Va a ser difícil para los gobiernos evitar que esta nueva crisis no desate una ola de demandas. Pero está en sus manos prevenir estos efectos en el futuro. El camino es hacerse eco de las voces de mas de 600 organización sociales y denunciar los tratados de protección de inversiones vigentes y frenar las negociaciones en curso. Ya no hay forma de justificar el nivel de costos que conllevan los Tratados de protección de inversiones, cuando no hay evidencia que estos traigan beneficios. 

Nuestro webinario Realidades feministas, transformar la democracia en tiempos de crisis, analizó los modos en que la pandemia se entrecruza con el patriarcado, el poder corporativo y una división mundial del trabajo racializada y de género. ¿Puede esta crisis brindar una oportunidad para reorganizar y desplazar el poder, con el fin de construir sistemas democráticos radicales que cuiden de verdad del medioambiente y nuestro bienestar colectivo?

Tithi Bhattacharya

Tithi Bhattacharya profesora asociada de historia, directora de estudios globales en la Universidad Purdue y coautora del Manifiesto de un feminismo para el 99%,inició el debate compartiendo dos imágenes elocuentes de la crisis: la primera, es la imagen de agricultores palestinos que dejan hortalizas al borde de la carretera para las personas que padecen hambre; y la segunda, es una imagen de la policía india rociando a trabajadores inmigrantes con lejía. Estas imágenes, que encarnan dos formas de respuesta, representan a personas corrientes que participan en actividades necesarias para su supervivencia y los modos carcelarios en que los Gobiernos y Estados intentan gestionar la pandemia.

El capitalismo –en particular, la agricultura industrializada que contribuyó a originar la COVID19– es responsable de provocar esta crisis, un sistema cuya respuesta es priorizar los beneficios sobre la vida, mientras sigue dependiendo, a su pesar, de los procesos y las instituciones que crean vida. El capitalismo depende de los trabajadores para producir mercancías que se venden para generar beneficios y, por tanto, solo puede sobrevivir si las vidas de las y los trabajadores se reproducen de manera continua y segura, y se reemplazan de generación en generación. Los alimentos, la vivienda, la educación y el transporte públicos, y los hospitales son componentes de la creación de vida que reproducen socialmente a los trabajadores y sus familias. El acceso a estos procesos determina a menudo el destino de los trabajadores en su conjunto, mientras que son las mujeres las que siguen realizando la mayor parte del trabajo de dar vida. A pesar de que depende de la vida, el capitalismo es reacio a utilizar parte de sus beneficios en lo que la sostiene y mantiene. El trabajo de cuidados está infravalorado, mal remunerado o directamente no remunerado, mientras la enseñanza y los hospitales se privatizan o se les retira los fondos.

Nuestro mundo antes de la COVID 19 ya estaba devastado en lo que se refiere al género. Las mujeres siguen realizando la mayor parte del trabajo de cuidados en el hogar; su trabajo no remunerado está valorado mundialmente en diez billones de dólares. Las profesiones que encarnan el espíritu del trabajo de cuidados –que incluye la enseñanza y la enfermería– dan trabajo a muchas mujeres y proporcionan servicios e infraestructuras que son esenciales no solo para la reproducción de la vida, sino también para la construcción de las capacidades y cualidades fundamentales para la condición humana.

La COVID19 azotó a un mundo con sueldos desiguales, mano de obra no valorada y una violencia de género extrema. Mientras se creaban hospitales de campaña para cuidar de las personas enfermas, las leyes de inmigración draconianas se relajaban temporalmente y se requisaban hoteles para alojar a las personas sin hogar, los Gobiernos del mundo reaccionaron al virus solo cuando resultó imposible controlar su propagación por medio de infraestructuras médicas. Después de ignorar durante años las advertencias científicas sobre el riesgo de una pandemia, los Estados del mundo, con ayuda de las grandes farmacéuticas, concentraron sus esfuerzos en construir sistemas sanitarios con ánimo de lucro. En los Estados Unidos, las estadísticas de 2,7 camas hospitalarias cada 1 000 personas y 120 armas cada 100 civiles demuestran con claridad cuáles son las prioridades.

Esta crisis ha revelado lo que las feministas han sabido desde siempre: que los cuidados que crean vida, que están principalmente a cargo de las mujeres (lo que incluye la producción de alimentos, la crianza, la limpieza y la educación), son los que sostienen a la sociedad y posibilitan que se realicen otros trabajos. Sin embargo, en los Estados Unidos, las mujeres representan el 60 % de las personas despedidas durante la pandemia y los enfermeros han tenido que trabajar con bolsas de basura y gafas de natación para protegerse. Asimismo, el índice de mortalidad es desproporcionalmente más elevado entre las personas de color. La violencia doméstica está aumentando en todo el mundo porque las mujeres tienen que permanecer en hogares en los que sufren abusos por parte de sus parejas u otros miembros de la familia, y a las mujeres inmigrantes se les traslada en avión para trabajar en fincas agrícolas en Italia, donde no se respeta el distanciamiento social. La reciente apertura de la economía ha provocado la lucha entre la vida y el sustento. En los Estados Unidos, los trabajadores tienen que decidir si tienen los recursos suficientes para quedarse seguros en su casa y arriesgarse a perder su trabajo y con él la cobertura sanitaria.

Como feministas debemos combatir la vuelta a la normalidad del capitalismo. Las maneras de lograrlo y trastocar la dinámica de priorizar el beneficio frente a la reproducción de la vida se hacen evidentes en las redes de ayuda mutua y solidaridad creadas por personas corrientes. El bienestar de la mayoría por encima de la prosperidad de la minoría debe ser una prioridad que supere el impulso ciego del ánimo de lucro que provoca la devastación ecológica y la violencia de género.

Awino Okech

Awino Okech profesora del centro de estudios de género en la escuela de estudios orientales y africanos de la universidad de Londres, presentó su perspectiva de cómo el ascenso y el choque entre el fascismo, el fundamentalismo y el capitalismo han limitado y predeterminado nuestras prácticas democráticas y de gobernanza.

Como bien sabemos, la pandemia ha expuesto drásticamente las desigualdades avaladas por la lógica racializada aplicada a la clase y al género. La historia del robo de vidas y el saqueo de países mediante los procesos económicos son ahora evidentes en todo el mundo, y nos enfrentamos a un desafío singular sobre las maneras en las que se estructuran nuestras sociedades. En el Norte global, estas realidades se han hecho más evidentes en los últimos cinco años debido a la manifiesta movilización y llegada al poder de movimientos racistas en Europa, los Estados Unidos y algunas partes de América Latina. En el Sur global, sobre todo en el continente africano, se sabe desde hace mucho tiempo que ciertos Gobiernos son sostenidos por una élite política internacional. Esto se nos vende bajo el pretexto de prevenir el terrorismo, gestionar la migración y la necesidad de aumentar la seguridad de países y fronteras, con el fin de impedir el movimiento de personas de África a Europa. Este discurso en torno al terrorismo y países estables y seguros es avalado por el deseo de las élites políticas local e internacional de mantener mecanismos de gobernanza en beneficio propio y no de la gran mayoría de la población. Por este motivo, votar se ha convertido en un ejercicio cívico degradado como consecuencia de las decisiones adoptadas por parlamentos condicionados en gran medida por otros actores como el capital, tanto estatal como privado e internacional. Sabemos ahora que la empresa británica de asesoramiento político, Cambridge Analytica, intervino en diversos procesos electorales y que los datos que cedemos voluntariamente a las populares plataformas tecnológicas se manipulan y movilizan en interés del capital mundial y las élites local e internacional. Renegociar el contrato social a través de la democracia y las elecciones ya no funciona para la gran mayoría.

En África –en particular Sudán, Burkina Faso y Egipto– se ha hecho evidente que la población se está alzando porque no está dispuesta a permitir que la farsa de las elecciones sea el mecanismo principal que determine sus futuros y realidades. La ira que estamos observando en el Norte global en torno a los mecanismos de gobernanza y las ideas sobre la democratización, las elecciones y el voto se ha observado en otras partes del mundo desde hace muchos años; esta narrativa determina procesos no democráticos, lo que incluye ideas sobre deficiencias culturales y raciales. En medio de la pandemia de la COVID19, la población del Norte global sabe perfectamente que los gobernantes no responden a sus necesidades, sino a las del capital y las élites mundiales.

Las analistas y activistas feministas que observan estos cambios en el mundo se han percatado de que los temas de género y sexualidad son fundamentales para entender la organización y movilización de los movimientos fascistas. Observamos que ciertas narrativas en torno a la persecución y eliminación de los derechos queer y de las mujeres por parte de algunos Gobiernos son medidas oportunistas cuyo propósito es impedir los debates sobre la corrupción y el fraude electoral. Poner en el foco a las mujeres, a los defensores de los derechos humanos y a las personas queer forma parte del proceso por el cual los movimientos fascistas y los grupos de extrema derecha están repensando la naturaleza del Estado. Las ideas conservadoras y ultranacionalistas perseguidas por estos grupos se fundamentan y configuran en conceptos conservadores y binarios en torno al género y la sexualidad. Debemos, por tanto, replantear nuestro propio activismo con respecto a las maneras en las que las políticas queer y los derechos de las mujeres han sido incorporadas a las ideas nacionalistas más generales y volver a la idea feminista fundamental de que el género y la sexualidad son centrales para el funcionamiento de nuestras sociedades.

Gracias a la investigación de conflictos y a las publicaciones que tratan sobre la transformación de las sociedades en momentos de transición desde el conflicto hacia la paz, sabemos que estas situaciones proporcionan una pequeña oportunidad para transformar y reconfigurar el modo en que nuestras sociedades reflexionan sobre las ideas de género. ¿De qué modo investigadores, activistas y todas las personas interesadas en sociedades basadas en la libertad, la igualdad y la justicia podemos aprovechar esta oportunidad? En vez de trabajar en espacios aislados, debemos pensar de manera crítica en torno a la solidaridad transnacional y construir narrativas más fuertes, y dirigir nuestro activismo en el Sur global de modo que contextualice un discurso central de cambio, transformación, justicia y libertad.

Khara Jabola-Carolus

Khara Jabola-Carolus es directora ejecutiva de la comisión que estudia la situación de la mujer en el Estado de Hawaii (HSCSW), cofundadora de la asociación de feministas que combaten el fascismo, el imperialismo, el feudalismo moderno y la exclusión, y autora del plan de Hawaii para la recuperación económica feminista frente a la COVID19. Su presentación giró en torno la eficacia de trabajar en el estado para transformar la democracia desde el Gobierno.

En Hawaii, un estado colonial con una larga historia de enfermedades infecciosas con impactos devastadores, las mujeres indígenas han sido siempre las más afectadas. Hawaii se ha vuelto inhabitable en la actualidad gracias a los saqueos producidos por el turismo, la construcción de viviendas de lujo y el militarismo, elementos que definen su economía. La mayoría de los estados de los Estados Unidos cuenta con una comisión que estudia la situación de la mujer, una herramienta creada por las feministas en la década de 1960 para ayudar a promover el movimiento. El carácter feminista de estas comisiones depende de las políticas implementadas y las leyes que las rigen. La HSCSW es la primera y más antigua comisión de los Estados Unidos con mandato para participar en política y vigilar la situación de las mujeres. Con la intención de vincular a investigadores con la teoría de la construcción comunitaria, la comisión actúa como el principal asesor de políticas para representantes políticos y gobernantes, además de fomentar una relación de confianza con las activistas feministas y las mujeres del estado.

Somos todos testigos del ascenso mundial del fascismo y, especialmente en Hawaii, la clase política se percibe como un gigante del capitalismo que ejerce presión para volver cuanto antes a la vieja normalidad. A fin de intentar contrarrestar esto, la HSCSW ha creado un proceso comunitario participativo que agrupa a las mujeres colonizadas, indígenas y transnacionales más afectadas que encuentran pocas respuestas en el feminismo occidental y las soluciones graduales. El grupo tiene un entendimiento común del trauma de la colonización occidental y cómo la pandemia y sus consecuencias para la comunidad se remontan a la colonización occidental, la pérdida de tierras y su valor, y la concepción de las mujeres como mercancía mundial.

Laura Roth

Laura Roth profesora de filosofía jurídica y política en la Universitat Oberta de Catalunya, Barcelona, miembro del Minim Municipalist Observatory y coautora del informe sobre prácticas,  , habló sobre las posibilidades radicales de la democracia feminista, la cooperación política y la gobernanza.

Las prácticas de esta índole tienen lugar en muchas ciudades y localidades de distintos continentes y cambian el centro de atención estratégico desde los Estados hacia la política local, no solo para encontrar respuestas a la crisis sino también a cuestiones sistémicas más profundas. Los movimientos municipalista y feminista son claves para lograr un cambio a escala mundial, puesto que ambos pretenden tanto modificar la estructura de la política e influir en las políticas.

Las respuestas a la pandemia a escala mundial muestran una tendencia hacia la centralización, los procesos descendentes de toma de decisiones y los discursos militarizados. Muchas de nuestras respuestas proponen descentralizar y compartir el poder con las comunidades y los movimientos sociales. Sin embargo, en tiempos de crisis, el miedo hace que las personas estén más dispuestas a renunciar a sus libertades y se preocupen menos por quién toma las decisiones. Observamos que las respuestas comunitarias se multiplican en muchos países y que los Gobiernos locales se ocupan de los impactos y consecuencias más prácticos y complejos para las personas más vulnerables.

Aunque tiene significados distintos, el municipalismo no propone simplemente más autonomía para las ciudades y localidades con el fin de decidir lo que es mejor para ellas, sino que es una estrategia política que pretende construir poder ascendente y posibilitar la colaboración entre los movimientos sociales, las comunidades y los Gobiernos locales. En España, el municipalismo implantado por muchas ciudades en 2015 no solo se conectó con las nuevas políticas feministas más democráticas, sino también con el deseo de cambiar los procesos políticos, vinculándose al movimiento en contra de la austeridad. Observamos una incapacidad de la política representativa tradicional para incluir a la población mientras, lamentablemente, el populismo de la derecha es capaz de movilizarla. ¿Cómo podemos abordar este problema y lograr que la población vuelva a participar en la política?

El feminismo y el municipalismo se centran en construir poder ascendente en vez de confiar en las estructuras vigentes que reproducen los privilegios existentes. Ambos movimientos tratan a las personas como sujetos y no objetos de la política, y reconocen la complejidad de los temas que plantea esta crisis, no simplemente como asuntos de políticas concretas o respuestas económicas. En la práctica, debemos pensar cómo podemos implementar nuevas estructuras políticas. Minim Municipalist Observatory ha recopilado y publicado una serie de informes sobre las prácticas y discusiones que están teniendo lugar sobre el terreno. Los temas clave de la igualdad de género incluyen no solo aumentar la participación de las mujeres en política, sino también compartir las responsabilidades en términos de visibilidad y liderazgo colectivo. Es importante tener en cuenta cómo hablamos de los temas en política y alejarnos de los discursos de confrontación para acercarnos a debates colectivos que se parezcan más a cómo las comunidades hablan y abordan sus temas. El trabajo en torno a la democracia participativa tiene lugar en muchos ámbitos con el propósito de implementar la toma de decisiones horizontal y crear estructuras que incentiven la descentralización y generen maneras diversas de que la población participe en la política, eliminando los mecanismos que tienden a favorecer los privilegios.

Un tema central de la política feminista es priorizar los cuidados en nuestras prácticas. No se trata solo de considerar como asunto público el trabajo de cuidados que ya se está realizando, con una distribución más igualitaria de las responsabilidades, sino también de que los cuidados formen parte de los discursos y prácticas de las relaciones políticas.

Felogene Anumo

Felogene Anumo de Building Feminist Economics y la Asociación para los Derechos de las Mujeres y el Desarrollo (AWID) presentó la campaña de rescate feminista, #feministbailout, una idea que surgió en cuanto el alcance y la escala de la pandemia hicieron que las grandes empresas se alinearan estrechamente con las demandas de un rescate.

Un mensaje importante en este momento es el llamamiento para rescatar a las personas y no a las empresas. La campaña #feministbailout pretende interconectar las soluciones y propuestas feministas que centran la atención en las mujeres y las personas trans y de género diverso que apoyan la economía, como parte de una agenda de recuperación económica comprensiva y mundial. La campaña desarrolla las realidades feministas que ya existen en nuestros modos de vida y las luchas cotidianas de nuestras comunidades. Un plan de cocreación ha implicado la coordinación de una serie de acciones en inglés, francés y español con más de mil colectivos, organizaciones e individuos feministas internacionales, empezando por una manifestación virtual a principios de junio. Esta semana de acción conectó y amplificó los mensajes y campañas existentes en el marco del rescate feminista, incluyendo la justicia climática, la autonomía corporal, la gobernanza, el suministro de recursos y la justicia racial y económica. Demostrar nuestro poder colectivo es clave para aprovechar esta oportunidad y asegurar que nuestras demandas diversas se vean, se oigan y se atiendan mejor. La campaña pretende, primordialmente, construir y fortalecer la solidaridad transnacional y reformular las economías feministas como la solución, no como la alternativa.

Debate

Al discutir la relación entre los Estados y el capitalismo, Tithi habló de los orígenes del capitalismo en el Norte global. Es muy importante recordar que la financiación para desarrollar el centro industrial capitalista de Manchester, en el Reino Unido, procedió del comercio de esclavos, que no tenía en cuenta las vidas africanas robadas y las familias británicas que debían trabajar jornadas de 14 horas. El resultado fue un sistema con una visión cortoplacista que se centraba en el beneficio, pero que dependía también de las vidas de las y los trabajadores. A medida que los Estados intervenían para regular las ganancias y asegurar su incremento, se eliminaron las funciones de reproducción social, como la financiación pública de la salud, mientras aumentaban las funciones carcelarias del Estado. Se reforzaron las fronteras para impedir el ingreso de inmigrantes y aumentó la violencia policial. Al desempeñar una doble función dentro del sistema, el capitalismo trata de garantizar la reproducción de la vida de forma desproporcionada, a la vez que militariza y certifica la muerte de la misma manera, valorando la vida solo para incrementar sus ganancias mientras refuerza las familias heteronormativas y la lógica social racializada. Hasta que no logremos la sociedad socialista ideal, debemos presionar al Estado para que priorice la vida frente al lucro, financiando más hospitales y escuelas en vez de cárceles y gravando debidamente las grandes empresas. El trabajo sobre el terreno por parte de los movimientos en favor de las personas excluidas es esencial para cambiar las prioridades de los Estados.

En su intervención final, Awino habló específicamente de una mayor solidaridad y cómo podemos apoyar el verdadero internacionalismo y coordinar los movimientos anticapitalistas, antirracistas y antihomófobos. La financiación con fines feministas, en particular, es menor para proyectos y programas, y se destina más al apoyo estratégico iniciativas sobre el terreno. Esto representa un distanciamiento fundamental de las ideas feministas que posicionan a la población del Norte global que accede a financiamiento como el factor determinante de las agendas e iniciativas de otras partes del mundo. La manera en la que padecemos la COVID19 y otras desigualdades estructurales que precedieron este momento no es igual para todas las personas, de modo que actuar como un aliado mientras se reconoce que los privilegios y la posición afectan nuestras conversaciones es un gran paso adelante. La organización autónoma es fundamental para permitir a las personas reagruparse, sanar y cuidarse, y se ha fortalecido en este momento en las formas en las que las comunidades han respondido a las iniciativas de financiación, a los cuidados y a los apoyos. La construcción de una solidaridad internacional real significa alejarse de las ideas generalizadas sobre el capitalismo y la supremacía blanca. Mientras se cierran las fronteras, hay muchos ejemplos de cómo los activistas han podido trabajar a distancia, ofreciendo la oportunidad de construir movimientos fuera de la agenda de desarrollo y la lógica de las ONG.

Khara señaló las múltiples formas en las que podemos propiciar el cambio cultural, a pesar de las diferencias nacionales y políticas. La defensa de cambios legislativos puede sentar las pautas y enviar un mensaje claro desde el Gobierno mientras se resalta que la educación comunitaria permite a la población reconocer la desigualdad de género. Debemos educar de una manera que esté vinculada con la empatía y la tradición oral, con el fin de propiciar estos métodos y crear las condiciones que ayuden a comprender la condición de las mujeres, la femme que se identifica como tal y las personas no binarias.

Laura cerró el webinario, realzando la importancia de dar voz y confianza a la población para que puedan realizar el cambio por sí mismos, y propiciar el aprendizaje mediante el empoderamiento de las personas para que participen en procesos y asuman su responsabilidad. Se puede desarrollar una cultura más democrática si se implementa y experimenta la democracia en la práctica. Cambiar la política a escala local es un modo poderoso para que las personas participen de manera significativa en la práctica real de la democracia vinculada con su vida y experiencias.

Nuestro webinario States of Control: the dark side of pandemic politics focused on the securitization of COVID-19. Measures such as the expansion of powers for military, police, and security forces and increased digital surveillance are being rolled out with little or no democratic oversight. How can we prevent the normalization of these practices and ensure that COVID-19 doesn’t become a new milestone in authoritarian states of control?

Fionnuala Ni Aolain

Fionnuala Ni Aolain, UN Special Rapporteur on the Protection and Promotion of Human Rights while Countering Terrorism, began by noting the importance of the speed of mobilization, global awareness, and exchange of information about the scale and scope of the powers being exercised by states during this pandemic. Following 9/11, the human rights and critical community took much longer to respond to a whole range of legal, political and administrative measures that were taken.

An emergency by definition denotes an unexpected event that poses a high burden or challenge to the state and in that context allows the state to take certain measures to protect the public. Under the human rights framework of international law, there are three specific contexts in which emergency powers – meaning the power of the state to limit rights – can be used: public safety, health and national security. The idea is that rights can only be limited for tailored specific purposes. International law includes divisions called derogation provisions in human rights treaties, meaning a state must formally inform other states and its own public that it is taking exceptional measures to respond to a crisis. However, there are a number of constraints on the state. The powers used must be necessary, so in this context of a pandemic, necessary to advance health. Any use of emergency powers must be proportionate, meaning every single measure must be exercised in order to assess if it is appropriately used. Any measures taken must be equality driven and cannot disproportionally or negatively affect one group over another.

Historically, the practices of emergency international law go back hundreds of years. In both civil and common law systems, powers of emergency have been used by states to aggregate their power over long periods of time. In addition to the high correlation between states of emergency and the abuse of human rights, temporary powers also have a persistent tendency to stick and states have rarely given them back at the point where the emergency is over. These powers also change the political cultures of states, removing many of the oversight mechanisms that constitute ordinary law. Subsequently, we tend to see a greater accumulation of executive powers, restrictions on parliamentary power, and an increase in the capacity and power of the security sector including the police. These resulting system-wide issues and the restriction of rights is why we must pay close attention when states use emergency powers.

In this moment, parallel to the medical pandemic is an epidemic of emergencies and extraordinary use of emergency powers. In a few cases, states are formally derogating and letting other states know that they are restricting rights but most are not. This corresponds to a major pattern of non-notification that has emerged post 9/11. These powers are being hidden in health and sanitation bills, making it hard for lawyers to find them and for NGOs and civil society organizations to know what these states are doing and therefore to hold them accountable.

Another pattern to consider is complex emergencies. In many countries, there is already an arsenal of post 9/11 counter-terrorism and security emergency powers that states are now adapting to the sphere of health. Private technology and security firms are also offering their services to states on how to use this arsenal of power and information.

Fionnuala concluded her introductory intervention by emphasizing the challenge that those of us speaking for liberty and human rights now face. It is not just the power of governments but also the power of fear and how it affects the rights we are prepared to give away in the face of a pandemic to save ourselves and our families.

Arun Kundnani

Arun Kundnani author of The Muslims are Coming! Islamophobia, extremism, and the domestic War on Terror, discussed the racialized aspects of this emergency legislation for certain populations, reiterating the context of 9/11 as a very clear example of what was presented as a temporary emergency becoming a permanent state of affairs. The terrorism acts that were rolled out around the world have not been repealed, and the authorization for the use of military force that was rushed through the US congress – in effect declaring the whole world as a battlefield for the US military – is still with us. The various forms of anti-Muslim racism that was generated by the war on terror have been intensifying around the globe, in countries including India, Sri Lanka, and Myanmar.

Fundamentally, two agendas are being rolled out by ruling elites. The first, the state dream of diminishing unruly populations including protesters, poor, migrants, and marginalized groups. The second, the neoliberal dream of creating a society in which our lives are entirely determined by market-based digital algorithms. Opposing these agendas means defending the very idea of humanity.

We are already seeing disproportionate effects of the pandemic on racialized groups as a result of institutional racism of various kinds. In the UK more than a third of deaths are people of colour even though they make up just 15 percent of the population. in Chicago, African Americans account for 64 percent of deaths even though they make up 15 percent of the population. These numbers are massively disproportionate and the American Civil Liberties Union estimates that there will be an additional 100,000 deaths in the US from COVID-19 as a result of mass incarceration. The impact on the global poor will also be hugely disproportionate and racialized. Frantz Fanon talked about the phrase I can’t breathe as a description for the basis of anti-colonial revolt that became a slogan for the Black Lives Matter movement and is also an apt phrase to capture the disparities in access to ventilators that we are seeing.

The new licenses that have been given to police around the world to enforce quarantines and lockdowns are intensifying existing forms of violence that have long been normalized. In France, Parisian suburbs are seeing measures enforced three times as much compared to other areas of the city. In Greece, police forces are strip-searching migrants and in Bulgaria, Roma settlements are being walled off and drones with thermal sensors being used to track temperatures.

During a pandemic, it is reasonable to expect some restrictions on freedom of movement but we are seeing an increased clampdown on migrants placed in immigration detention centers where there is no possibility of isolation and where infection rates of 75 percent are predicted. In Qatar, migrant workers are being offered testing and instead being placed in detention and deported. This is very worrying as we need trust in the medical process to encourage people to participate in the testing we need. Various EU countries are turning away refugees across the Mediterranean in newly violent ways and Malaysia is refusing to accept refugees from Myanmar. In Hungary there was already an unwarranted state of emergency declared surrounding migration that cast this situation in a different light. Right-wing forces around the world are mobilizing around this virus with new forms of racism. Both Trump in the US and Orban in Hungary talk about ‘the Chinese virus’, implying a coordinated response.

Anuradha Chenoy

Expanding on the idea of the war narrative and the notion of creating an enemy, Anuradha Chenoy author of Militarisation and Women in South Asia continued by focusing on the idea of states using the ideology of militarization to accumulate power.
COVID-19 undoubtedly marks an authoritarian moment in world history in which regimes in power have used the virus to expand their control over citizens and centralize power even within democratic systems. When the virus started spreading almost all states had a similar reaction of panic, unpreparedness, lack of confidence in citizens, and taking emergency steps without declaring an emergency. India like many third world countries is hugely dependent on a working-class based on internally migrant labor who come from villages into towns. A complete lockdown was decided in a few hours and the state panic spread to these workers with about 700,000 returning to their villages knowing they could not sustain themselves without their daily wages while living in cramped conditions with little access to basic amenities and sanitation. It remains completely undocumented how many people got lost and died of fatigue and hunger. In South Africa, despite a moratorium on evictions, many municipalities used this moment to evict informal workers. We can see a new kind of protectionism within states where invisible borders are being imposed on communities, between villages and towns and gated communities and outsiders.

The lockdown is actually a lock-in for women in abusive relationships and the use of force on citizens has increased. In many countries including Israel, Philipines, Iraq, and Yemen, the military took to the streets, using force to exacerbate fear and anxiety. Vigilantes linked to many of the right-wing populist regimes and governments in power took on the role of stigmatizing particular communities.

Regarding the enemy narrative, India did not blame China as the US, Hungary and several others did. However, a congregation of a particular Muslim sect in Dehli was linked to the spread of the virus, further stigmatizing the Muslim community, while there were many similar congregations of other religions held at the same time. We have also seen a surge of Islamophobia in Myanmar and many southeast Asian countries as well as a clampdown on Palestinian communities by Israel.

Militarized discourse is being used to frame the pandemic as a war with leaders of many regimes referring to themselves as war presidents. The President of Uganda openly stated that the pandemic is like a war and people should not insist on their freedoms. This discourse transformed into practice in many countries, with terms such as herd immunity and COVID co-morbidity essentially used to refer to collateral damage during wartime. In India, non-violent students and protestors involved in a long struggle against discriminatory new citizenship laws have been detained under draconian laws and incarcerated at a moment where increasing jail populations risk escalating the spread of the virus. The recent Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) report shows no decrease in defense expenditure that many social communities, as well as NGOs and the UN, have been calling to spend on health. Regional and international organizations, including The South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) and the European Union, seemed far more concerned with closing borders than solidarity and assistance.

María Paz Canales

María Paz Canales of Derechos Digitales (Digital Rights campaign), Chile went on to discuss the role of technology in the rollout of authoritarian measures, linking its use to points made by the other panelists and emphasizing the fundamental part technology has played in the evolution of counter-terrorism military strategies and militarization.

In the current situation, many civil rights restricting technologies that were deployed to fight crises in the past are being repurposed by states and corporations under the pretext of helping to combat the spread of COVID-19. As previous panelists have mentioned, fear not only drives people to assign blame on a specific group but also to find shortcut solutions to tackle the problem in a more efficient way. Technology is a commonly regarded solution that many authoritarian, as well as democratic states, are tempted to use. However, extraordinary deployment of technology that can have any impact on human rights must be regarded and evaluated according to the international human rights standard. Principles of legality, necessity and proportionality are essential to consider. As mentioned, past emergency powers, as well as technologies, have the tendency to stick and we are now seeing the repurposing of surveillance technologies in the context of the pandemic. Many of these invasive technologies have hugely impacted the civil rights of vulnerable groups and did not prove significantly effective for their original purposes.

Specifically, civilian communication geolocalization technology has been proposed to help track the spread of COVID-19 but there is not enough discussion about the details of the fundamental capacities of these technologies. The type of data used in localization has a variability between five and 500 meters, and neither the granularity or precision needed to measure the possibility of viral transmission that spreads in contact situations of one to two meters. This implies the surveillance of people rather than the virus, and will unnecessarily expose marginalized groups to the risk of discrimination. The same can be said for facial recognition technology that has been used for national security counter-terrorism purposes to limited effectiveness due to lack of precision. We should be looking at these technologies far more critically and working towards resisting the appeal of techno solutionism as a response to fear, rather exploring alternative technologies that are compatible with human rights.

Debate

The discussion moved on to consider the future and how the world might look once the medical emergency subsides. Fionnuala continued by underlining the importance of thinking about this crisis as a process rather than an event. In an Orwellian outlook, we might imagine empowered authoritarians and weakened democracies and multilateral systems as an outcome. We may see narrower civil society space, a struggle for such organizations to survive, and an empowerment of states in ways that are profoundly discordant. However, this is also a potential for opportunity in the sense of crisis as innovation where disruption and pain brings extraordinary opportunity to rewrite the status quo. The pandemic illustrates structural failure and the lack of enforcement for fundamental rights like health, water, housing. These systemic issues are what we must focus on in order to emerge from this crisis in a better situation.

The world has shut down on the basis of the protection of the right to health so the question now is how do we proceed, assuming we have won the argument that health is a basic human right. Opportunities are presenting themselves for new ways of organizing, being intentional as a community, and finding innovative ways of calling our leaders to account and forcing them to consider rights. The global effect of the pandemic allows us to mobilize in a way we haven’t before. Although some are clearly affected more than others, every person’s rights are being impinged upon in some way and this allows us to reclaim the language of rights for all in a way that is both rhetorical and profoundly practical.

Arun agreed with Fionnuala that we may have won the argument that healthcare is a right but not the battle for the kind of global public health care system that we need. What we will be up against is corporations trying to exploit this situation to create their version of a new agenda and new world order. Once we are used to conducting much more of our lives digitally via dependencies on corporations, this is where they will want to keep us. Delivering healthcare and higher education via video link for people who cannot afford in-person interactions could become a new standard. The Institute for Policy Studies recently released a report showing the wealth of billionaires in the US increased by ten percent in April alone. These findings are in line with Naomi Klein’s idea of the shock doctrine, where such opportunities arise in crises.

How do we start thinking about social life in ways that are possible in this situation of a pandemic? How can we avoid freezing our lives in a moment where we are scared and isolated? Harsh authoritarian measures such as those inflicted on people in India and South Africa protesting because they have no food can seem legitimate in a situation of quarantine, but we must remember that we can protest and organize now. Our strength comes from the streets and we must not give up public space – it is likely safer for you to protest then be at work in an Amazon warehouse. It will be vital to defend our sense of human connection and the sense of collective movement building. In essence, the revolution will not be quarantined.

Many questions came through from the audience around mobilizing and organizing in a safe way that doesn’t put people at risk. Anuradha went on to elaborate on participatory democracy and how we can push back on the shut down of democratic structures.
Alternate paradigms have shown themselves during this crisis within states, particularly those led by women that have worked properly through democratic procedures. In India, some states such as Kerala have handled the situation well and treated their migrant labor as guests, providing them with facilities enabling them to stay.

During this crisis, civil society in many southeast Asian countries as well as Africa and especially Europe, has shown its strength at a time states have failed to deliver, providing food packets from communities to migrants.

We have seen emerging alternative media including the Wire in India to counter toxic press like Fox News in the US. Many of these online newspapers are speaking truth to power and are involved in critical thinking with engaged scholars. Some universities have also resisted the clampdown. We need to connect ideas and show that the paradigm of civil society, critical scholars, and thinking individuals is the one we need to crack the dominant hegemony. Instead of globalization, we must focus on international solidarity.
Maria went on to discuss using technology to mobilize, highlighting the opportunity to finally mainstream the question of the development of technology as well as our online lives in general. How can we find alternative ways to develop technology that really serves the principles of solidarity and the social movements we are discussing? There is currently a very limited variety of tools that digital rights activists can recommend as being more secure and aligned with the principles of social movements. We must, therefore, use this increased awareness of what we need to collectively organize and create new technology that will better serve our purposes. As we see the use of technology by governments and the private sector in healthcare provision as well in the welfare state, it is clear that the human rights perspective must be considered from design to deployment. We cannot wait for this kind of crisis to confront us with the false dilemma of having to choose between which rights we want to keep in place. The awareness we have gained must fuel social movements to be more critical in their interactions with governments and companies for the future.
In her final intervention, Fionnuala responded to the question of what might happen if health goes beyond being seen as a human right and is interpreted as an issue of national security. The language of the indivisibility of rights is seeing a new moment where we understand the links between civil and political rights and economic and social rights, providing a moment to re-own that space of indivisibility. Historically it is also interesting to note that during previous health emergencies, such as H1N1, the use of powers taken by the state was actually returned.

Securitization must be robustly defended against as we have already seen in the counter-terrorism space where the term extremism infiltrated security into the home, doctors’ offices, and classrooms, making everyone a watcher for extremism. We must push back on the unacceptable securitization of health spaces through exceptionality.

In his final word, Arun spoke about a collaborative project with TNI investigating progressive alternative ways to use the billions spent on security in the UK. Security should be as much about healthcare as anything else. When militarized nation-states like the US are confronted with a global public health care crisis, their goal is to turn it into something that fits with what they are good at, therefore framing it as a matter of inter-nation state violence and rivalry.

As well as the dangers of militarization is the point at which people start asking why this happened and how we can stop it happening again. Assigning blame, whether that’s on China or Muslims, enables us to avoid the very important realization that these kinds of viruses are the product of capitalist agriculture, industrial production of meat and environmental destruction. Capitalist globalization is unsustainable without the global public health infrastructure that we need right now.
Anuradha’s final note was on approaching the crisis from a feminist perspective, considering intersectionality as well as a care economy with livelihood and living wages recognized as well as health.

Maria then concluded the discussion with a point on data rights, clarifying that not all data is the same in terms of value and the harm it can cause. We should be demanding that our authorities be more critical about what type of data is useful for what purposes considering the data that can be helpful in combatting the pandemic can be aggregated without identifying individuals. To allow governments to assists the most vulnerable people and make better strategies within allocating resources, testing capacities and health services it is not necessary to put those groups of people at risk of discrimination by collecting individual identities. This will be pervasive for the future with relevant consequences in the possibilities of employment and migration status. We must establish controls to make sure this type of data truly alleviates the crisis and does not harm people at risk of discrimination and violation of their human rights

Nuestro webinario Taking Health back from Corporations: pandemics, big pharma and privatized health brought together international activists and healthcare experts at the forefront of struggles for equitable universal public health. What needs to change in terms of access to medicine, the pharmaceutical industry, and the global governance of health?

Susan George

Susan George author and President of TNI, opened the discussion with background on the strength of the pharmaceutical lobby. The ten biggest pharma companies in the world amass a total sum in capital of US$1.8 trillion. Using the US as an example, the health industry including various chains of profit-making hospitals, clinics and nursing homes as well as pharma companies, is at the center of the world’s financial lobbying. In Brussels, there are around 30,000 lobbyists pushing for deregulation, lower taxes for the rich, and privatization. Tied up with the neoliberal economic framework, the ‘just in time’ structure of the health system leaves no reserves of supplies to deal with epidemics and is the blueprint of what lobbyists want for global health. A system clearly not aimed at helping people but rather at maximizing profit. We are struggling to fight this pandemic because we have allowed our health systems to become neoliberalized. However, progress can be made by paying attention politically to legislation influenced by the health lobby and putting pressure on creating laws that will serve the people. Healthcare workers are underpaid and under-equipped but wealthier countries can rectify this through proper taxation to have social security systems worth the name.

Baba Aye

Baba Aye  Health Officer at Public Services International, explained how we got where we are today. The 1978 international conference on primary healthcare organized by the World Health Organization (WHO) and UNICEF proclaimed healthcare for all by the year 2000. The conference attempted to capture and build on that spirit of the factors that led to the emergence of the WHO, giving public health the same importance as healthcare delivery. What followed was the corporatization and marketization of health, starting in the 80s with private finance initiatives (PFIs) in countries like Britain and in developing countries, specifically in Africa, after the World Bank Report of 1981 and the introduction of user fees. The argument essentially centered around involving corporations to address the problem of lack of money for the public healthcare system. PFIs and public-private partnerships amount to subsidizing private interests with public money that could be used to provide universal public healthcare.

An unholy trinity has now emerged between big pharma, health companies and private health demands due to the emergence of so-called innovative means of financing health that in fact only enable these companies to make more money. With big money comes big influence internationally and in governments that help to entrench the power and control of corporate bodies on healthcare delivery. Some 15 years back the British Medical Journal drew attention to the fact that more than half of medical programs in the UK were funded by big pharma.
Most of these corporate bodies are also involved in tax avoidance. Collaborative research by Public Services International and the Centre for Corporate Tax Accountability has shown that these corporations have around $36 trillion in tax havens around the world. A year ago in California, there was a referendum to limit the amount of profit that was hidden to not more than 115 per cent of total costs. The companies involved raised over $130 million for a campaign to oppose this limit against barely $18 million raised by trade unions and civil society organizations in support of it. Unsurprisingly the corporations won with 59 per cent of the votes.

In 2016, following the Ebola outbreak, The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) was established. Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) pushed for combining such an effort with suspending intellectual property rights on vaccines to ensure their availability to more people. Companies including Johnson and Johnson stood against this and CEPI bent to them resulting in a projected $61 billion profit from vaccines this year. This shows how public money is used to subsidize private interest. Since the 1930s, over $900 billion has been spent by governments on developing pharmaceutical products that are ultimately patented as a source of profit by big pharma companies.

To fight against this Public Services International has been organizing a right to health campaign for the last four years, focusing on these arguments that affiliates in 154 countries have been pushing to their governments as well as organizing civil society support to demand universal public healthcare. Due to this pandemic governments have been forced to take over hospitals, and convert factories to manufacture PPE gear and medical supplies. We must insist that there is no going back, our health is not for sale.

Mark Heywood

Mark Heywood, of Treatment Action Campaign, Section27 and editor at the Daily Maverick,followed on from Baba by taking us back to 1994, the year that South Africa was liberated after 350 years of colonialism and racism under apartheid. Access to life-saving and disease-preventing medicines was a major priority. But the World Tade Organization (WTO) was established shortly after and with it the TRIPS agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, which extended an extremely rigid standard of intellectual property around the world, strengthening the hold of big pharma.

As South Africa attempted to amend legislation to make medicines more affordable, the HIV pandemic took hold of the country. Thirty-nine big pharma companies took the government to court as it tried to gain access to medicines and the impacts of TRIPS and the WTO became clear, leaving those medications accessible only to the rich. In the last 20 years, 3 million people have died from AIDS related illnesses in South Africa due to unaffordable medication.

Despite the resources, money and lobbying that these companies command people are powerful when we organize. In 1999, just 10 people started the Treatment Action Campaign to fight for affordable HIV/AIDS medicines. The campaign combined on-the-ground social mobilization of poor and working-class people who needed access to medicines and using the law and constitution to assert that health is a basic human right. Media coverage of the campaign shone a light on big pharma and brought in to question the morality of the industry.
Although South Africa was on the frontline, this was a global struggle, fought with activists in Brazil, India and many other countries resulting in pressure on the WTO to instate the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement that reaffirmed flexibility of TRIPS member states in circumventing patent rights for better access to essential medicines. Particularly important in the context of COVID-19 is the section of this agreement that enables state governments to issue compulsory licenses in the case of public health emergencies that require access to life-saving medicines. Although we need affordable medicines not only in emergency cases, this was an important victory. However, in the mid 2000s we as global activists fell back to our individual fights, allowing pharma companies to regroup and reorganize. In the years following 2006 they once again managed to reassert their power.

Today, while HIV/AIDS drugs and medicines are very affordable in developing countries, people die of preventable illnesses because diagnostics are patented and therefore unaffordable. Mark believes we have found ourselves back in much the same situation as in the late 1990s and it is time to regroup and rebuild our arguments around the critical importance of access to medicines. We must reassert health as a human right, as stated in our constitutions. Governments, therefore, have a duty to guarantee people the fruits of science, medical development, and modern technology and act against profiteering and private interests when they impede the rights of access to healthcare.

With the development of the vaccine and therapies against COVID-19 the question of access, affordability and patents will become the defining issue of the pandemic. We cannot afford to wait until a vaccine is developed to start raising these questions and demanding universal access not only to the vaccine but to the knowledge and understanding behind it. As with HIV/AIDS and cancer drugs and almost all medicines, breakthroughs come from public investments and research that is then taken over for private benefit and profiteering. What we must reassert, once we overcome the immediate COVID-19 crisis, is that healthcare is a basic human right and not for private profit or benefit.

Kajal Bhardwaj

Kajal Bhardwaj continued to elaborate on the impacts of the intellectual property rights regime on health in the context of COVID-19. As was the case during the HIV/AIDS pandemic, we see global attention once again acutely focussed on intellectual property rights that in most countries are now being enforced by international trade rules. Unlike 20 years ago we now have a massive expansion of these regimes in our own national and regional legal systems and we see just how deeply entrenched these intellectual property protections are across all aspects of health products we might need to fight COVID-19 including PPE, diagnosis, medicines and vaccines. During the peak of the outbreak in Italy many 3D printing enthusiasts who printed parts of ventilators were immediately threatened with legal action by companies with patents on the parts.

Currently, there are 145 studies and over 30 potential treatments for COVID-19. Drugs hoping to stop viral entry include Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine, the two Malaria drugs that have had an alarming and controversial push in the US despite lack of evidence of their effectiveness. There is also hope that treatments currently used to treat HIV and Hepatitis C could prevent the virus from replicating within the cell. These are a few examples of what the potential drug targets are. All are existing heavily patented medicines attempting to be repurposed to treat a new illness. Many have expired patents but this has not stopped the companies holding them from applying for new intellectual property protection.

The above image is a snapshot of the patents and applications for Remdesimir and Tocilizumab in China. When multiple patents are filed on the same drugs for new forms and uses this extends the time of exclusivity that companies have over the drug and stops generic companies stepping in to manufacture them at affordable costs.
The tactics pharma typically falls back on to deflect criticism include donations, price cuts, and voluntary licenses. These strategies actually allow pharma to maintain control since they decide who gets the medicines, when, how, and at what cost.

Many believe that in the face of the current emergency, pharma will not behave the way they have over the past 15 years, but we would be fools not to learn from history. Government action or a threat of government action forces good behaviour from companies. We have also seen positive developments from the governments of Germany, Canada, Chile, Columbia and Ecuador who have all put forward measures for issuing compulsory licenses. In Brazil, a proposed bill to warrant automatically granting compulsory licensing on any products or technologies needed during a declared international emergency is being considered. This would remove many of the procedural difficulties of issuing compulsory licenses in the current system. We also know there is a significant generic capacity in many countries. For vaccines, capacity is much more limited but there is at least the possibility to ramp up production of chemical medicines if they are approved.

Thanks to the work of public interest minded academics, a study has been published [link] on the minimum costs of production of a number of treatments currently being trialed. For some, the estimated costs per day is a dollar or less, confirming that these treatments can be made at affordable prices.

Kajal ended by emphasizing the importance of this work in fighting corporate control over health. Histories are carried across generations, countries, and written in blood and stone. Whether it is for this pandemic or indeed the everyday pandemics that we see in the struggle for health.

Kajal Bhardwaj

David Legge  of People’s Health Movement, detailed the role of the WHO in the governance of global health, beginning by underlining the importance of understanding the two sides of the organization. The governing bodies, particularly the World Health Assembly are where the member states come together to govern. The secretariat is the staff, led by the director-general.

Working over the last 30 years under increasing donor control, the program funding of the WHO is now essentially entirely dependent on tied voluntary contributions from wealthy countries, the World Bank, and big philanthropies. The World Health Assembly adopts a notional budget but the work that can then be implemented is completely dependent on what the donors are willing to fund. In addition to restrictive funding conditions, donors – the US in particular – also use the threat of defunding as a means to control the secretariat.
The US has advanced the interests of big pharma through bullying and donor control, including by trying to block the essential medicines list providing advice to countries on the minimal medicines needed in the face of marketing efforts of corporations. Fortunately, this list is now standard. A further example concerns the WHO’s attempt to adopt a binding code on the ethical promotion of pharmaceuticals. The US and a number of wealthy countries used their power in the assembly and capacity to refuse donor funding to prevent any action on the rational use of medicines, effectively leaving the marketing strategies of big pharma unchallenged.
The most relevant case is the use of bullying to prevent the WHO from advising countries on how they pass into law the principles of the TRIPS agreement and how they accept propositions on intellectual property in various free trade agreements. Although the assembly passed resolutions on giving such advice, the secretariat faced severe pushbacks from donors, particularly the US, when implementing it. Proposals for publicly funding the research and development of pharmaceuticals to allow lower costs have been supported in various ways by member states in the assembly but prevented from them being enacted.

Also important to note is the scaremongering carried out in direct cooperation between wealthy countries and big pharma, arguing that any medicines not tightly controlled by intellectual property are likely counterfeit and therefore dangerous. These false allegations encourage states to adopt medicines legislation which in effect helps to police pharma’s severe intellectual property claims.

Fundamentally, the way in which the WHO is controlled is critical to setting the conditions for effective action on COVID-19. Past failure to continue research following the epidemics of the other two coronaviruses, SARS and MERS, will result in a delay in developing a COVID-19 vaccine. Barriers to low and middle-income countries establishing their own manufacturing capacity will be created by the extreme intellectual property laws and associations with trade liberalization. The WHO’s lack of skepticism regarding early Chinese advice on person-to-person transmissibility contributed to delays in implementing initial more-targeted travel restrictions resulting in the rapid spread of the virus and consequent need for harsher restrictions with deeper economic consequences.

The issue of travel and trade restrictions has been fiercely debated between public health and trade officials since 1851. The debate centers around concerns of whether travel restrictions are sufficiently effective in disease control to justify the economic effects, if health protection is being used to justify protectionism, and trade aggression and whether the economic damage from travel and trade restrictions impacts the resilience of the affected countries in coping with epidemics. International health regulations forbid restrictions on trade and travel unless approved by the emergency committee. In the context of ebola in 2014, many wealthy countries were challenged by the WHO for implementing unapproved travel and trade restrictions. The implementation of severe travel restrictions in relation to COVID-19 has had a devastating impact, particularly on those countries least able to draw on their own resources to confront the virus. Earlier sharing of evidence from Wuhan about transmissibility and the implementation of targeted trade and travel restrictions could have limited some of the harm.

Ways Forward

Panellists and participants identified further ways forward:

Learning from the lessons of previous pandemics we need to strengthen work on the ground. A convergence of people’s movements around the world is vital to drive not only progress on COVID-19 and the WHO but fundamental structural and systemic change. This pandemic has shown the interconnectedness of public health with the social-economic system. A human-made crisis created by policies that enforce underlying inequities and place economic interests above health and environmental concerns. We need to organize internationally and consider our collective networks and capabilities as well as the issues we can draw on to affect a new global consensus that covers health issues and puts people over profit.

Fearful individualism and insecurity is driving a new form of fascism in many countries during this crisis. Promoting a sense of solidarity instead will be important. We need to reframe corporate control in terms of the transnational capitalist class, including corporate and political leaders of wealthy, imperialist countries. Considering their control, tied into neoliberalism as a strategy to defend such elites against instabilities of their own making, must be a way to help us build a consolidated global movement.

How can we begin to understand the complex relationship between the COVID-19 pandemic and our food systems? How is this crisis impacting communities and transformative strategies for a future founded on international solidarity, agroecology and food sovereignty? Our recent webinar A Recipe for Disaster: Food systems, inequality and COVID-19 addressed these questions and more.

Rob Wallace

Rob Wallace outlined the situation so far and posed a number of questions that served as starting points for the discussion that followed.

More than a quarter of current recorded global cases of COVID-19 are in the US with large outbreaks in Europe and the Middle East. Cases in the Global South are on the rise, in a context of lesser public health capacity, fewer household resources to shelter in place and a greater number of underlying health conditions. In the most impoverished areas of the Global North and South matters including access to food are becoming arguably more pressing than the virus itself.

We are seeing reversals including Britain accepting shipments of masks from Vietnam, Cuba sending doctors to Italy and Senegal turning around tests in four hours, while the same tests take ten days to process in the US. These telltales are underway during what world-systems theorists describe as a major shift in the cycles of capital accumulation which have structured much of the world order for the past 500 years. The US is on the tail end of its cycle of accumulation, cashing out and turning capital back to money for the wealthiest. Rob described the recent US defunding of the World Health Organisation (WHO) not as an exercise in imperial might but a capitulation of the American role of keeping the global system on the same developmental path despite the unsustainable destruction this path represents. With its individualized public healthcare, the US now barely has enough hospital beds and equipment for normal operations let alone the resources necessary to pursue the scale of disease suppression that this outbreak demands.

China, in contrast, having invested in building the infrastructure it needs to turn money into capital, moved to eradicate COVID-19 from Hubei by deploying 40,000 medical staff and conducting comprehensive contact tracing and testing.

Addressing why some countries have escaped the worst of the outbreak, Rob noted successful government responses that both prepare a country during the advanced warning stage and sees the shared commons as still part of the purview of governance. Taiwan and Iceland have been effective by means of aggressive testing, tracing and isolation of cases. Vietnam provides most of its population with comprehensive health care and has doctors and nurses in every community. Unlike in the US where the federal government set off a black market bidding war for ventilators between states, there are few if any reports from Vietnam of price gouging, panic buying or hoarding.

Economically, disease and deficits are interacting. Those countries worst affected will find themselves further in the fiscal hole once the economic fallout begins in earnest. Efforts to fix the outbreak and economy simultaneously see attempts to push the two crises onto the indigenous and poorest workers worldwide. Brazil and the US are already planning to reduce the criminally low wages of immigrant farm workers as a ‘pandemic relief’ for agricultural companies.

These cycles of accumulation – the US cashing out while China ramps up – have impacted the very origins of COVID-19. Over the past 40 years China chose to engage in massive shifts in land use and migration to feed and pay its population. These shifts had a considerable impact on decoupling and then recoupling traditional ecologies into new configurations that have had a profound effect on both the economy and epidemiology. Post-economic liberalization in China has seen the rise of multiple strains of new influenza including H5N1, H6N1, H7N9, H9N2 as well as SARS1 and now African Swine Fever which killed half of China’s hog last year. The genetics of the virus SARS2 show it to be a recombinant of a bat coronavirus and a pangolin strain that subsequently attuned to the human immune system either before or during the Wuhan outbreak.

Clearly agriculture had a role to play in this process, despite China moving towards an official position that it did not. Somehow the virus got from the many coronaviruses circulating among a variety of bat species in central China into Wuhan. How do you explain a move from bats to pangolins through perhaps another intermediary species such as hog into humans without bringing up agriculture or logging or mining? In all likelihood, an expanding regional circuit of production maneuvered both the increasingly formalized wild food sector and industrial livestock production further into China’s hinterlands where both sectors increasingly encountered bat reservoirs. These peri-urban loops are growing in the extent of population and can increase the interface and spillover between wild non-human populations in newly urbanized rural areas. These new geographies also reduce the environmental complexity within forests that help to disrupt the transmission of deadly viruses.

This regional circuit of production of COVIDs likely origins – forest to peri-urban to city – is reproduced around the world, offering a broader framework by which to consider outbreaks. SARS1 and SARS2, Ebola, Zika, Yellow Fever, African Swine Fever, Avian Swine Influenza, Nipah virus and Q fever among others all originated or reemerged somewhere along such expanding circuits of production, whether in the forest or the new peri-urban continuum or in factory farms and processing plants near or in cities. Many such new ecologies are driven by imperial or neoliberal imposition. Infectious diseases are not merely the matters of the virus itself but also the context in which they emerge. Coronaviruses are only one of many pathogens developing in such an agro-economic context.

We must protect the forest complexity that keeps deadly pathogens from infecting livestock and human hosts that then enter the world’s travel network. We need to reintroduce livestock and crop diversities and reintegrate animal and crop farming at scales that keep pathogens from ramping up in deadliness. We must allow our food animals to reproduce on farms, restarting the natural selection that allows immunities evolution to track pathogens in real-time. These are many of the very practices that the indigenous and smallholders of the world engage in as a matter of course in their everyday cultivation. Can we scale these out specific to the needs of people around the world and as a consequence make a world in which there are many worlds?

Arie Kurniawaty

Arie Kurniawaty of the Indonesian feminist organization Solidaritas Perempuan (SP), working with women in grassroots communities across the urban-rural spectrum described how, in Indonesia, the population is particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 due to impoverished living conditions, inaccessible health services and the high number of people with tuberculosis and diabetes. Due to a lack of medical personnel that can provide sexual and reproductive health services since the pandemic, there are also reported cases of pregnant women feeling anxious and having to postpone their routine checks. Indonesia is particularly vulnerable to natural and ecological disasters including floods and volcanic eruptions. Following the 2018 earthquakes, tsunami and liquefaction in Sulawesi, survivors are still living in temporary shelters with poor water and sanitation facilities. Despite being very rich in agriculture and fishing resources, Indonesian food producers – particularly small scale and traditional – are constantly threatened by corporate power, land grabbing and extractive industries. Even amid the pandemic these damaging infrastructure projects continue and workers do not have enough protection. Solidaritas Perempuan is documenting the impacts of COVID-19 as well as the government policies to address the crisis that are proving biased towards the middle class and do not take into consideration the diversity of the population. Physical distancing and large scale restrictions recently implemented in some big cities have already resulted in millions of people losing their jobs. Traditional markets have no support from the government to implement safety protocols and are subsequently labeled as harmful and unhygienic. Women make up most of these market sellers and buyers. In coastal villages, fish markets have been closed so women are struggling to sell their fish and shells. In turn this economic difficulty has created an increase in domestic violence.

At the same time, people are showing solidarity and building collective action including several initiatives focusing on connecting the needs of urban and rural people. Some villages have rebuilt their food barns in anticipation of a food crisis, while others are monitoring local distribution of government aid packages to combat corruption. Unfortunately, the government has reallocated budget from village empowerment and education to the military and the country is close to martial law since the government believes people will not follow regulations due to their need to sustain their livelihoods.

Moayyad Bsharat

Moayyad Bsharat of Union of Agricultural Work Committees (UAWC), began by outlining the geopolitical situation. According to the Oslo agreement, the West Bank is divided into areas A, B and C. Area C is under total Israeli administrative and security control and forms more than 63 per cent of the entire West Bank with 95 per cent of productive agricultural land for Palestinian food production and more than 300,000 people living there in marginalized conditions. Despite international law, Israel is failing to take responsibility for the care and health of the people under their occupation. Many vulnerable Palestinians are therefore at increased risk from COVID-19, also considering the lack of accessible hospitals and Israel’s refusal to contain the growing number of infections within Israeli settlements in the West Bank.

Since 2007, the Gaza strip has been under an Israeli blockade. The population are trapped in terrible conditions with weakening health and increased vulnerability to infection. In addition, the Palestinian Authority’s neoliberal policies of privatization have left small scale farmers and impoverished families unable to cover their primary healthcare.

Since the outbreak, UAWC has been campaigning for farmers and marginalized families who have a lack of healthcare support from Palestinian authorities as well as due to Israeli restrictions and occupation. In a bid to assist farmers in returning to their land to cultivate, UAWC is distributing 350,000 vegetable seedlings in support of nourishing food production that does not depend on the commercial and chemical processes of agribusiness. The organization also supplies herding communities in marginalized areas with hygiene kits to deal with COVID-19.

Moayyad, like Rob, cited the pandemic as the result of capitalism and a basic disregard for humanity and the environment as well as the small scale farmers who are producing the healthy and nourishing food needed during this crisis.

Paula Gioia

Paula Gioia, a peasant farmer and beekeeper in Germany and a member of the Coordination Committee of the European Coordination Via Campesina, provided a perspective on the situation in Europe.

Agriculture in Europe has been structured over the past decades on an industrialized model that feeds corporations, labor exploitation, human rights violations, loss of diversity and animal diseases. However, 95 per cent of farms in Europe are small or mid-scale feeding local populations with fresh and healthy food beyond the long supply chains of supermarkets. In times of the pandemic, peasant agriculture continues to be threatened by globalization and international markets including increased difficulty in accessing public peasant markets. In Spain, Italy and France the closure of the food service industry, limitation of direct sales and the increase in the concentration of food trade in large supermarkets represents huge economic losses for small scale farmers. This comes during Easter, a time of year when many small scale meat producers make most of their annual income. The good news is that direct sales through consumer cooperatives, shopping groups, community-supported agriculture and the open-air markets still allowed is proving to be a resilient strategy.

Another consideration is the aging of European farmers. With an average age of 65, the core of the sector is very vulnerable to COVID-19 infection and faces extra difficulties regarding delivering their produce and accessing fields. Field access is also proving difficult in the context of lockdown policies designed for urban areas. In a rural context housing and farms are not always in the same place so many cannot access their place of work. Considering the waged work structure of Western European agriculture, many seasonal migrants already forced to accept poor working standards are now facing dangerous health and safety conditions as well as reduced labor rights due to longer working hours. These are just a few of the developments impacting not only the existence of small scale farmers but also our entire populations right to food and nutrition.

Sai Sam Kham

Sai Sam Kham of Metta Foundation in Myanmar,saw many parallels in Myanmar. In the context of likely inaccurate numbers of infected due to limited testing capacity, there has been a panic reaction stemming from a deep-rooted and justified mistrust in the government and its healthcare capacity. As mentioned by other panellists, the social distancing measures and lockdown policies in place are a difficult idea for many people, not only culturally but in the context of wage laborers and much of the rural population now unable to make a living. There is a rise of xenophobia as the large numbers of migrant workers returning from Thailand and China are vilified. The government quarantine plan addresses people returning by air but not via border areas. By the end of March some 75,000 people returned from the Thai-Myanmar border with no capacity for accommodation in quarantine facilities. After a simple temperature check they were sent home and advised to self-isolate but there is no monitoring or regulatory system in place. Despite imposing class blind interventions, the government is also attempting to provide food for those in need. However, there is much public criticism over the organization of this aid.

The de facto leader Aung San Suu Kyi, is using an official Facebook account to communicate with the public daily, a welcome communications effort, however, more strategic interventions are needed. Hospitals have insufficient PPE gear and medical supplies while much of the population have no access to healthcare. Suu Kyi recently made a plea to the public to be more compassionate to the victims and each other while her government has banned internet access in the conflict-ridden western part of Rakhine and Chin states. People are in need of access to information to fight the pandemic as well as to survive the conflict. Humanitarian aid in many areas is difficult to access and in March alone, more than 100 civilians were killed by indiscriminate air raids and mortar shelling. Over 800,000 vulnerable people are displaced in Rakhine, Kachin, Chin, Shan and Kayin states across the country as well as the one million Rohingya people in the refugee camps of Bangladesh.

Civil society organizations in Myanmar and the general public are trying to do as much as they can. Organizations demand immediate cessation of the conflict while the public are mobilizing to the same effect. China is providing much appreciated medical teams and support, however, their overt strategic economic and political interest in Myanmar is cause for concern of dependency. Sai Sam concluded that conflict, land grabs, dispossession and migration, are all linked to and very important to consider while dealing with this pandemic.

Debate

Small scale farmers and fishers are heavily involved in acting as agents of historical change not only locally but globally. We may be in a better position now to strike forward against agribusiness and reestablish the story of food in such a way that it is not an industrial economy but rather a part of the natural economy, involving the sun, the soil, the life cycles of animals and the health and welfare of communities. It is fundamental to put small scale farmers and fishers in a position to teach us how to heal this metabolic rift that is dividing ecologies and economies and subsequently driving the worst emergence of pathogens.

This clearly also extends to politics on the national and global stage. A divide between the urban and rural must be repaired in a way that connects the welfare of everyone.

The pandemic has exposed the obvious, that our global health and welfare is connected and the divide between the Global North and South must be addressed. Unequal ecological exchanges in which the North entirely extracts the resources and labor from the South must end. Practices supplied by centers of capital including New York, Hong Kong and London have pushed the development of deforestation that has led to the spillover of these new pathogens.

Panellists and participants identified several ways forward:

The pandemic could be a turning point to show that emerging grassroots initiatives are providing a solution that we already have, our sovereignty. A solution in terms of solidarity, in that knowledge and practices of the people work and therefore agribusiness is unnecessary. If governments carry on with a business as usual approach nothing will change. We need a consolidated movement among the people on the ground to express our demands.

Agroecology is a solution for agribusiness and this should be an opportunity to let people, not only in Palestinian territories but around the world, return to their land to cultivate and prove this. Considering that the neoliberal policies of governments are the main cause of vulnerable communities, they must take responsibility to support small scale farmers and impoverished families. As the slogan of Vía Campesina says we must globalize the struggle. This is a global fight against capitalism and neoliberal policies and a chance for international solidarity to make humanity not profit our priority.

Immediate next steps must be measures from policymakers to guarantee the mobility of small scale food producers to their fields, meadows, waters and markets. In terms of agriculture, Via Campesina demands that all European countries advance the common agricultural policy subsidy payments for 2020 and that small scale food producers who face losses now have tax reductions to be able to guarantee the upcoming sowing and harvest season. The health and safety of these producers and land workers must be guaranteed in the fields as well as at local markets. Longer-term public policies to support new entrants into European agriculture and ensure a generational renewal are also important.

We must finally step down from a model in which large scale animal production, already shown to be far more vulnerable to infections, contributes to climate change and exploiting labor. This is an opportunity for measures to develop local, healthy and sustainable food production in the hands of small scale producers at fair prices.

Concluding the webinar, Rob stressed that what climate change and this pandemic indicate is that we are at a profound historical moment. Our troubled path is largely controlled by sociopaths who believe we can engage in capitalist accumulation as if people are things and can be thrown away as products and there is an infinite supply of resources to burn through without consequence. Somehow we need to break this command of the planet – a huge generational project that will require a total reversal of the present power dynamics. This will extend from immediate tactics under the constraints of how we are operating now to understanding that agribusiness is opposed to public health as a matter of principle and externalizes its costs of production onto animals, crops, local environments, labor and wildlife, all in the name of profit. This must be broken in order for agroecology and regenerative agriculture to reconfigure ecologies back in a way that inputs and outputs speak to each other. If we continue to offload the worst of the damage onto the planet and people we will reach a point where the system will collapse under its own weight, bringing everybody down with it. Can we cycle out of this mode of production to a place where we return to the planet that we walk on? If we alienate the means by which we grow food and produce, we destroy the planet and people on which we depend in order to persist as a species. A profound shift in the very nature of our relationships with each other and the planet is required to be able to address climate change as well as the coming pandemics.

It was late July, off the coast of Libya during a late-night fishing session that they heard the desperate cries. Once he saw more clearly, Captain Carlo Giarratano realised quickly that the small dinghy was gaining water, and the 50 refugees aboard, with no fuel or food, had only a few hours until the precarious craft lost all of its air. ‘No human being – sailor or not – would have turned away.’ Reflecting on the situation Carlo understood that, ‘If you decide to cross the sea in those conditions, then you’re willing to die. It means that what you’re leaving behind is even worse, hell.’¹

The Italian fishers gave the stranded passengers what little food and water they had aboard and set to work coordinating the rescue of their boat, which was eventually brought to port in Sicily. This gesture of humanity put Carlo at risk of a fine of up to €50,000, or even jail time, because of then Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini’s ban on bringing refugees to shore without permission.² But in his words, ‘No seaman would ever return to port without the certainty of having saved those lives. If I had ignored those cries for help, I wouldn’t have had the courage to face the sea again.’³ This third generation fisher lives by the law of the sea: the life of another person at sea has the same value as your own.

Not all fishing boats operate by these principles however. According to investigative reporting by the Guardian, ‘exploitation of foreign labour is an open secret in the Irish seafood sector’ and, ‘illegal “black” overfishing and “modern slavery” were putting the future of the industry at risk.’⁴ Meanwhile the Migrant Rights Centre, Ireland found, ‘The high-risk environment is linked to exploitation: long hours and exhaustion affect a worker’s ability to react and respond to dangerous situations. The experience of verbal abuse and racism of fishers at the hands of some skippers is indicative of an unequal value for the safety and life of migrant fishers.’⁵

How do we make sense of the diverse realities that exist at the intersection of migration and fisheries in Europe? This brief article is an initial attempt to understand the different ways that people who migrate interact with the European fisheries sector, and to contextualise this question by providing some background about the structural changes in the European fisheries sector which may shape who migrates, who fishes and under what conditions? While this short exploration is in no way able to provide definitive answers to all of these questions, the hope is to nonetheless shed some light on the issues and political opportunities at the intersection of migration and fisheries in Europe, as a first step for future research and organising.⁶

Changing migration flows reflect shifts in opportunities, the push of poverty and the drive towards something better for one’s family and loved ones. These changes have been conditioned by European fisheries and border policy, which has opened up western African fishing grounds for overfishing by European trawlers and at the same time, militarised ocean space by externalising border control.

By some accounts, as early as the 1970s irregular immigration from Africa to Europe took place on large fishing trawlers. Those who could pay €2500-3000 would make deals with the trawler owners to take them to Spain at the end of the fishing season, and others would seek the aid of the workers on the trawlers for a lesser fee (€500-1000) to make the passage as a stowaway.⁷ Others would take overland routes through the desert to Spanish protectorates Ceuta and Melilla. However migration flows have shifted over the years in response to increased border controls, and the externalisation and militarisation of EU borders led by Frontex, the EU border control and coast guard agency which was established in 2004. Further, entry into Europe via Ceuta or Melilla declined after the highly publicised 2005 brutality against migrants attempting to cross the border, and the increase of the border fence height from 3 to 6 meters. So new opportunities were identified further and further south along the West African coastline from which point boats could take people on the move across the Atlantic to the Canary Islands. The Mauritanian city of Nouadhibou became a transit hub, until strengthened border controls pushed efforts further south to Saint Louis in Senegal, Mbour, Joal, Casamance and eventually Guinea-Bissau.⁸ According to the Spanish Ministry of the Interior, some 31,678 people were stopped as they landed on the shores of the Canary Islands in 2006 alone.

From 2006 onwards, coordinated by Frontex, the EU effectively began to subcontract its border security tasks to West African countries, via operations like Hera I, II, and III, in hopes of catching people in the first steps of their migration journey. ‘Through this cooperation, European member states such as Portugal, Italy and Spain supplied 2 helicopters, 2 ships and around 10 patrol boats to Mauritania, Senegal, the Gambia and Cape Verde.⁹ As controls were ramped up, the Atlantic sea route to Spain dwindled in importance and in 2012 only 173 new arrivals were arrested. Of course this number excludes, the many hundreds, if not thousands who did not survive the journey.¹⁰ After this point, however, Mediterranean sea routes saw renewed importance, and once more diversified and expanded rapidly.¹¹

Border security is not the only thing that the EU has externalised. A collapse of fish stocks due to overfishing by European vessels has also been exported to West African coastlines. European fisheries agreements have given highly industrialised European fishing boats access to foreign waters, notably those of West African countries, thus putting extreme pressure on local fishers in those places. This has made it impossible for many small-scale fishers to compete, as trawlers overfish and fish stocks decline. The collapse of West African fisheries is a key ‘push’ factor for migration. Many who embark on treacherous journeys across the Atlantic or the Mediterranean in search of work and opportunities to support their families do not make it.

For those who do make it, upon arrival they face institutional racism, xenophobia and the threat of deportation limiting their ability to make a decent life. Industrial fishing is one of the sectors in Europe that increasingly employs migrant labour. This tragically ironic circuit, in which European trawlers generate the conditions that force people to migrate and benefit from their precarious position upon arrival by hiring them in exploitative labour arrangements, is one of the central processes shaping the way migration intersects with fisheries in Europe today. One fisher describes how he was brought to tears when he had to return to Senegalese waters on an industrial fishing boat, unable to set foot on land to visit his family, and continuing the pillage of his native coastal fishery which caused him to migrate in the first place.¹⁴

Of course, not all West African fishers migrate, people from a range of different backgrounds migrate to Europe, and not all non-local people who end up working in the European fisheries sector are former fishers. We pay special attention to the case of Senegalese migration to explore the multiple ways that people are pushed and pulled into this circuit and how strategies of social reproduction, including food provisioning, are being reshaped in the process.

When asked what it feels like to arrive in Europe as a Black African woman, Nicole Ngongala of Asociación Karibu responded: ‘It’s raining, you have an umbrella in your hand, but you are getting wet.’²⁶ The promise of opportunity and the ability to find work and send some support home to family who stayed behind is the umbrella that inspires thousands to risk their lives to make the journey in search of a little more shelter and protection in tumultuous times. However upon arrival, many find that the umbrella they are able to find is in fact riddled with holes by racism and exploitation, providing little protection at all.

Many European nationals find the protection against risk and precarity offered by the fisheries sector insufficient. Increased pressure and uncertainty among fishers, compounded by high levels of risks and accidents at sea, mean that European youth are choosing not to continue fishing in the family tradition. Increased regulatory and financial barriers impede access to boats and necessary qualifications, making entry into fishing challenging. Strictly regulated or limited fishing periods drive fishers to stay out longer hours or in bad weather in order to catch enough to earn a living.²⁷ European nationals generally have more educational and professional opportunities than their parents, thus causing, ‘recruitment through a father-to-son pathway to become less common.’²⁸ At the same time,

As one young Belgian apprentice fisher explains, ‘It’s unpredictable how much you can earn sometimes. That’s why a lot of people are uncertain if they really want to do it. And also because it’s really hard work. And a lot of people have kids and stuff, and they don’t want to leave them behind.’³⁰ Indeed, ‘it is fishers who are paying the price for the growing economic and environmental pressures in today’s fishing industry. Over the past three decades liberalization, unfair competition and inadequate regulation have led to a squeeze on the wages and working conditions of fishers.’³¹

Indeed the number of fishers in Europe has steadily declined in recent decades. Data varies but,

In France recruitment is most difficult on medium and larger vessels.³³ Declining fish stocks combined with rising consumer demand for fish products especially incentivises industrial trawlers to cut costs on wages in order to compensate for decreases in catch and maximise profits.

On larger vessels that stay out at sea for days on end fishing distant waters, boat owners hire workers as employees rather than as independent contractors. While on many smaller boats, fishers are paid an equivalent to a portion of the catch. According to Seafarers’ Rights International it is this large-scale part of the industry that is primarily turning to non-local labour.³⁵ ‘Migrants – including those from non-EU countries – are often viewed as the solution to difficulties in recruiting from the local population who sometimes regard fishing or fish processing jobs as low wage work with unpleasant working conditions.’³⁶

Fishing has always been a dangerous profession.

However, fishers not working in their country of origin face even higher levels of risk and injury. ‘For example, 75 per cent of deaths on UK fishing vessels in 2008 were migrant fishers from either Eastern Europe or the Philippines. The Filipino death rate of 350 per 100,000 was more than three times the UK death rate of 102 per 100,000.’³⁸

Of course, those who end up working in the Western European fisheries sector face very diverse circumstances and challenges. Many non-local fishers are highly sought after for their excellent skills at sea. Some migrant fishers, who work for companies that are sensitive to migration issues, can achieve comfortable working and living conditions, even if fishing is still hard and dangerous work. But unfortunately, many end up in fishing jobs that take advantage of their immigration status, particularly when they are in an irregular administrative situation. A variety of exploitative labour arrangements and mechanisms enable boat owners to pass losses on to workers.

Human trafficking and near or actual slavery conditions are a reality today in Western European fisheries. According to an investigation by the Guardian, ‘some boat owners and crewing agencies are smuggling African and Filipino workers into Ireland through entry points at London Heathrow and Belfast airports, and then arranging for them to cross from Northern Ireland into the Republic by road, bypassing Irish immigration controls.’ Fishers interviewed by the Guardian indicate that crewing agents set up deals in advance in the fisher’s country of origin, lending money for the passage and charging for the visa, which ultimately doesn’t exist. Though not explicitly told they would end up working without papers when promised by recruiters that a job awaited them in Europe, upon arrival fishers are shouldered with debt to hiring agents and, ‘[m]any workers describe subsequently living in fear of deportation and being told to stay on their boats in port because the owners would be fined if they were spotted and stopped by the authorities.’⁴⁰

The International Transport Workers Federation (ITF), which has spearheaded the campaign for regulatory change in Ireland⁴¹, has also denounced similar practices in Galicia, Spain.⁴² Our fieldwork found that in Brittany, one boat owner is well known for confiscating the papers of migrant workers, in order to put pressure on them to accept low salaries. These situations trap non-local fishers in exploitative work arrangements, where they suffer from psychological pressure, lack of sleep, dangerous work conditions and limited time on land, all of which limit the extent to which they are able to organise collectively or even make contacts that could help them to escape or push for better working conditions.

People migrating within the EU may also face unjust and irregular employment conditions. The system of posted workers makes it possible for European companies to hire workers without following all the regulations of the country in which they work. Typically workers are subject to the labour law of the country where their work is carried out. However, in the EU there are a few exceptions:

This essentially allows a worker employed in one EU member state to be posted to work temporarily in a different member state. This means that the worker is subject to the employment conditions of the ‘sending’ country, where they remain formally employed. In 2017, a total of 2.8 million posted worker agreements were issued. Workers in agriculture, hunting and fishing only make up some 0.8% of total posted workers, but this nonetheless represents some 10,972 workers in that year alone. Notably, 6,911 (63% of posted workers in agriculture, hunting and fisheries) came from Poland.⁴⁴ And, in the case of French fisheries, our field work indicates that such workers are hired by industrial boats in order to cut costs and pay wages lower than French fishers expect. In this case, we also found some Spanish boat owners who had bought old French trawlers to access French fishing quotas, and who rely on lower wages of posted workers to recoup the cost of the investment. Taken together these practices reveal the ways that some boat owners leverage the mobility of capital and labour within the EU to increase profits. The European Commission has described this as ‘social dumping,’ a situation ‘where foreign service providers can undercut local service providers because their labour standards are lower.’⁴⁵

Although reliable data for legally employed migrant labour in fisheries across EU members states doesn’t exist, a 2016 European Commission study attempts to compile existing data sources. Authors claim that:

Much of this labour comes from workers moving between EU countries, as is the case for 86.1% of non-local workers in France, for example. However, countries like Spain and Portugal rely much more heavily on non-local workers coming from outside of the EU, as the table below demonstrates.

In many cases the diversity within the European fishing fleet is an opportunity for cultural exchange on board and generational renewal in a sector which many local young people have preferred not to work in. However, our fieldwork suggests that on some boats racialised workers, despite having work permits, face ongoing racism and discrimination at sea, which can make already tough working conditions unbearable. Senegalese fishers working on big trawlers in Brittany explained they face harassment at sea because of the racism of some white crew members. This can lead to depression or to tensions among the crew. Some of those interviewed explained that this can be a motive for leaving a boat or an enterprise, to find a place where they feel more accepted, even though finding another job may be very difficult.

For many people who migrate to Europe, continuing to fish may not be an option. One striking example of this trajectory is the case of Barcelona’s street vendors, known as ‘Manteros’. Given the impact of European fisheries policy on Senegalese coastal areas, an important portion of the people engaged in street vending to make a living – selling clothes, bags, shoes, etc. in the touristic parts and next to the recently gentrified Port Vell of Barcelona– are former Senegalese fisher people. However, they are often criminalised both by the police and sometimes by local people for selling informally on the street. The Barcelona Municipality has been trying to improve the situation of street vendors and to better welcome refugees, but so far there has not been any real solution to the issue.

However, as a way of combatting the precariousness and social stigma that they face in Barcelona, the primarily Senegalese community of street vendors formed a cooperative in 2015 called the ‘Sindicato Popular de Vendedores Ambulantes,’ commonly known as the ‘Sindicato de Manteros’ (Union of Manteros). A year later they created their own brand, ‘Top Manta’ and began to sell their own t-shirts and sweat-shirts under the brand of the cooperative in an old shop in the Raval neighborhood. After the establishment of the cooperative, many social movements took notice of the struggle and began looking for ways to collaborate. The Sindicato de Manteros has thus participated in many assemblies, events, and cooking workshops in order to explain their stories and their struggle, opening the way for further collaborations with other collectives and movements. In one such encounter former fishers and members of the collective participated in the ‘Food Sovereignty and Small Scale Fisheries encounter’ organised in Barcelona in June 2019. This was an important opportunity for people from different food sovereignty movements to understand their struggle, and helped to make their case more visible and establish bridges of solidarity. In the context of the Coronavirus crisis, the collective has organised the collection of food and donations to distribute among families in need. Still, they continue to face harassment from police threatening to fine them up to €60,000 for ensuring the basic food security of over 300 of the city’s most vulnerable families.⁴⁷

Besides those who leave or enter formal employment in fisheries, many refugees use recreational fishing as a way to meet part of their household/community protein needs. In France, for example, recreational fishing is legal and important for many families who suffer from racist immigration policies, as well as social and economic exclusion. In Douarnenez, in Brittany, recreational fishing is a widely used community subsistence activity among immigrant populations from nearby cities. The, so-called ‘pier of shame’ attracts locals, Africans, Asians and Roma people en masse to fish mackerel or squid. Especially in summer and autumn when these fish are in season, the dock is shoulder to shoulder, filled with hundreds of people fishing. Fishing gear ranges from professional poles to a simple hook and line thrown by hand. Recently, conflicts between these ‘recreational fishers’ and the professional fishers working in Douarnenez have arisen, and the municipality wants to prohibit all recreational access to avoid conflicts. This criminalisation of recreational fishing would significantly impact the families who count on it for subsistence. Fishing on this pier is a lively social activity, seen as a way for communities to meet and support each other. If this prohibition goes through, the intercultural value of this dock in Douarnenez would be lost. This type of prohibition could also fuel divisions and scapegoating of immigrants for supposedly triggering the closure of the pier. Realising this, local people organised a movement to defend ‘the right to fish for everyone,’ demanding universal access to the pier.
Artisanal fishers on the French Atlantic coast are also working to create access to fishing for migrant youth with a focus on decent working conditions, and support for acquiring necessary training certificates. In Saint Jean de Luz, in the French Basque Country, one ex-fisherwoman involved in small-scale fisher movements is now retired and involved in organisations supporting refugees. When one young man showed interest in the fisheries sector, she decided to ask her former colleagues to take him on board so that he could discover what fisheries are about. In this French fisher’s words, ‘When he told us about his story and the way he had to cross the Mediterranean Sea while seeing his friends dying, we realized how lucky we were. It is clear that we should help these people to get saved at sea and have proper living conditions afterwards.’ This young man is now studying in the fisheries school of Ciboure, in order to go to sea as soon as possible, which would provide him a decent livelihood.

As explained in the introduction, Sicilian fisher people are currently helping refugees in the Mediterranean Sea. But these fishers and the NGOs organising rescue operations in the Mediterranean Sea are constantly criminalised by the repressive arm of the European Union, often referred to as ‘Fortress Europe’. The EU funds and trains Libyan Coastal Guards or local militias to prevent refugees from entering European territory by returning them to Libya. ‘Today solidarity with migrants is a crime. Save people from drowning in cold waters and you are a human trafficker.’⁴⁸

Because of this political climate and their precarious living conditions, refugees often struggle to organise politically and many are trapped in the paternalism of some charity organisations. However, 2019 saw the creation of the collective ‘Les Gilets Noirs’ (‘Black vests’, in reference to the yellow vests, another French social movement). This collective has organised massive actions in Paris to defend the rights of refugees seeking asylum, with the slogan ‘rights and papers for all’.

In parallel, fishers often struggle to organise collectively, as we can see from the declining membership in small-scale and artisanal fishers’ organisations. Generational renewal and recruitment into the sector is a key issue. Thus the refugee crisis and the support that fishers want to give to people who migrate could be an opportunity for fishers and refugees to learn from each other and strengthen political mobilisation in each area—something that will be increasingly necessary to counter policies that undermine small-scale fishing and criminalise refugees.

As the space for saving people at sea is currently shrinking because of a broad far right discourse in the European Union, the role of fishers in these moments is crucial. And despite widespread measures to criminalise rescue and solidarity efforts, collective autonomous action is emerging and winning nonetheless. ‘When the migrants were safely aboard the coastguard ship, they all turned to us in a gesture of gratitude, hands on their hearts. That’s the image I’ll carry with me for the rest of my life, which will allow me to face the sea every day without regret.’⁴⁹

In recent decades the situation for Turkish small-scale fishers (SSFs) has become critical, threatening their economic and physical survival. Overfishing and illegal fishing have led to the collapse of important fish stocks. Pollution due to high levels of urbanisation and industrialisation, and insufficient environmental controls has contributed to falling fish stocks and catastrophic biodiversity loss, especially in the Marmara Sea. Finally, the marketing structure of fish and seafood has trapped many SSFs and their co-operatives in a cycle of accumulating debt. Current fish and seafood markets are based on intermediaries and commissioners (as well as bigger fish businesses concentrated in few hands) which utilise their market power to pressure SSFs to accept too-low prices, leading to a spiral of indebtedness. As a result of these pressures, small-scale fisheries became more and more marginalised. Younger generations lost interest in fishing and civil society was largely ignorant about fishers’ identity and culture.

In the face of these difficult conditions, SSF are finding their voice and highlighting the role of fisheries in broader food system change. The Association of Istanbul Fishing Cooperatives has become key fisher voice in global conversations about food sovereignty and agroecology. They participate in FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and IPC (International Planning Committee for Food Sovereignty) meetings with other organizations fighting for food sovereignty such as La Via Campesina, and play an important role representing regional and global fisher movements in the international arena. These meetings and gatherings have facilitated a process of collective learning among a range of Small-Scale Fisher (SSF) movements, as well as other agroecology and food sovereignty movements composed of peasants, pastoralists, beekeepers, and global and regional climate justice movements. How did these Turkish fishers come to play such a central role in giving agroecology and food sovereignty meaning in the context of fisheries?¹

Small-scale fishing cooperatives in many regions are important social and political actors in strengthening localized food systems, sustainability of fish stocks, and just food regimes. The Association of Istanbul Fishing Cooperatives (henceforth “Istanbul Birlik”²) is one of these actors. It represents 34 fisheries cooperatives with about 2,500 members mostly consisting of small-scale fishers around the Istanbul region in Turkey. It was founded in 1980, and the fishing areas of its members are mostly on the coastlines of the Marmara Sea or the (South Western) Black Sea.³

Istanbul Birlik also forms part of SÜR-KOOP, which is the national central association of fishing cooperatives in Turkey. Founded in 2004 SÜR-KOOP is made up of 15 regional members. Istanbul Birlik, which has about 243 cooperative members representing approximately 19,000 individual fisher members⁴, is a very active regional member. SÜR-KOOP, however, consists of both industrial and small-scale fishers. Therefore, the regional associations have distinctive characteristics, and their own positions and activities.

Historically, industrial fishers and industrial fisher cooperatives have been economically and politically influential actors, active in meetings with policy-makers, especially with the General Directorate of Fisheries and Aquaculture under the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry. However, small-scale fishers were previously less represented in these spaces and processes. The active participation and organisation of small-scale fisher cooperatives has made them stronger and more visible especially since 2012, ‘when around 200 Istanbul Birlik fishers attended the fishery notification meeting in Ankara to the surprise of industrial fishers and policy-makers. […] This was the first time that such a meeting was attended by any small-scale fisher organisation.´⁵

In Turkey, the vessels of small-scale fishers are usually between 5 and 12 meters long. Most are wooden boats using gillnets and/or longlines. Small-scale fishing boats form 90% of the country’s fishing fleet, but their total catch is usually less than 10% of the total yield of the fishing sector.⁶ Thus, there is a significant discrepancy between the catch obtained by industrial fishers, and that caught by small-scale fishers. This discrepancy also takes the form of a dramatic difference in the environmental impact and pressure on fish populations created by the two kinds of fisheries.

Istanbul Birlik was established in 1980, but it has been especially active in the last decade. In this time Birlik focused on building its members’ capacity, participating in different social and political circles, and building alliances with other social actors like universities, NGOs, municipalities and journalists to confront the situation they have been facing as a SSF community. The election of a new board and a new head of Istanbul Birlik in 2011 was a key step in this process. The new leadership took a more active approach, focused on community-building, active participation, defining structural and political goals, and strengthening communication between fisher people from different cooperatives; with policy-makers at different administrative levels; and with other social actors such as researchers, NGOs, journalists, and municipalities.

In this period, conflicts between small-scale and industrial fishers have also become more visible, especially in debates over the law that stipulates the legal distance from the coast where purse seiners and trawlers are allowed to fish. On November 3^rd, 2011, purse seiners and trawlers organised a protest in the Bosphorus Strait, with their vessels, claiming that they should be allowed to fish closer to the coastline. Meanwhile, small-scale fishers and NGOs like Greenpeace and Slow Food Istanbul branch (Fikir Sahibi Damaklar) openly denounced trawlers fishing illegally in the Bosphorus, as well as the sale of illegally caught juvenile fish.⁷ Industrial fishing actors and other powerful intermediaries colluded closely in well-organised networks which, during this time, used increasingly violent and illegal tactics in defense of their interests. Intimidation and coercion were directed against outspoken groups of environmental defenders which included SSF communities, ecologists, consumer groups, and NGOs. These intimidation tactics even included an attack on the head of a cooperative in Istanbul.⁸

In such an environment, the cooperation of Istanbul Birlik with a range of civil society actors – including NGOs such as Greenpeace and Slow Food; consumer groups; restaurant chefs; journalists; and academics from different fields including biology, fisheries economics, fisheries and aquaculture engineering and the social sciences – became an important inflection point for their visibility, helping to strengthen their voice in different political and social spaces. Istanbul Birlik co-organised campaigns with other organisations which included: (i) a campaign against illegal fishing in order to prevent the catching and selling of juvenile fish with the slogan, promoted by Greenpeace, “How many centimetres is yours?”⁹, and (ii) a 2011-2015 campaign¹⁰ to protect the traditionally and culturally significant blue fish species of the Bosphorus called “lüfer” with the slogan “Lüfer protection team”.¹¹

Internally, Istanbul Birlik also organised ongoing capacity-building activities among its members. Each year they host 2-3 multi-day workshops, which are attended by the boards of member cooperatives, who attend in order to then share information with their own cooperative members. These workshops have aimed at: improving the management structure of cooperatives by sharing the principles, legal structures and responsibilities of cooperatives; promoting sustainable fisheries; and discussing how to improve the situation of their members. Improvements are understood both in terms of the infrastructure and facilities provided to fisher members, but also more holistically through protecting the SSF identity. These workshops have facilitated a fisher-to-fisher learning system, strengthened collaboration among members of Istanbul Birlik, and developed their internal organisational structures. Meanwhile, they also allowed cooperatives and their members to communicate and collaborate more closely with researchers and university professors. Fishers were able to get feedback and support from academics by exchanging ideas on a range of topics including legal structures, cooperativism, the relation of fisheries and aquaculture, marine plastics, and Blue Growth, among others.

Despite the previous political and economic dominance of industrial fishers, Istanbul Birlik has succeeded in making small fishers ever more visible in the last decade. During this period, they achieved recognition as important actors in this sector, and have slowly been included in discussions about the amendments of national fisheries legislation, which is renewed every 4 years, with the last one in effect until 31^st of August, 2020.

While Istanbul Birlik has been strengthening its collaborations in Turkey, it has also entered existing international networks, and built new relationships and collaborations. In particular, it has worked with other local, regional and global actors ranging from social scientists and scholar activists to the peasant movement La Via Campesina and other SSF movements striving for agroecology and food sovereignty. This international activism and network-building has helped to raise awareness of fisheries issues within the broader international movements for food sovereignty and agroecology, strengthened the political voice of SSFs, and given rise to new opportunities for collaborations and joint work.

After participating in the ICAS-Etxalde conference and an associated ocean grabbing workshop in Vitoria/Gasteiz in the Basque Country in April 2017, Istanbul Birlik hosted a workshop of SSF organisations from Europe in September of that year. Regional members of World Forum of Fisher Peoples (WFFP) and representatives from Spain (APROAMAR), France (Plateforme de la Petite Pêche Artisanale Française), Russian indigenous platform (Aborigen Forum) and Saami (Saami Council) SSF representatives participated. This exchange became an important moment facilitating a deeper understanding of problems and struggles common to fishers throughout Europe, and encouraged the fishers to look for ways to further collaborate in international spaces. These collaborations led Istanbul Birlik to attend the 7th General Assembly of WFFP held in New Delhi, India, in which the WFFP celebrated their 20th anniversary. In this General Assembly, Istanbul Birlik became a member of WFFP coming together with more than 50 other country representatives.

Another key gathering was the 7th Urgenci International Symposium in Thessaloniki, Greece in November 2018, which brought together 324 participants from 40 different countries representing agroecological consumer groups, food justice networks and small-scale food producers. This network and its meetings have historically focused on Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) groups, but Community Supported Fisheries (CSF) and related initiatives were also featured in this year. A panel on SSFs and food sovereignty stimulated discussions about how to strengthen the collaboration between CSAs and CSFs, and how to form a joint movement around food sovereignty. The main panelists – Local Catch Network (and Fish Locally Collaborative) from USA and Istanbul Birlik from Turkey – shared experiences, ongoing projects, and lessons learned about how to construct stronger networks of collaboration among agroecological consumption cooperatives or consumer groups and local fishers, and how to increase public awareness and attention regarding the situation at sea and in local fisheries. Although both initiatives mentioned significant challenges that they have faced and are still facing, learning from each other’s experiences and seeking new ways to collaborate further was an important outcome of this meeting.

These encounters gave rise to a new project: — Urgenci, Pleine Mer (France), Local Catch Network (USA), the Transnational Institute, and Istanbul Birlik will collaborate in a multi-year project on Community Supported Fisheries. The program aims to further develop fisher-to-fisher trainings, to empower SSFs, their communities and their local food systems, and to map and connect regional CSF networks so that they can strengthen their own movements and establish stronger alliances. ‘[T]hese transnational alliances constitute a source of inspiration for Istanbul Birlik in terms of new ideas (e.g., food sovereignty and agroecology), organisational structures, or even procedural details such as how to run an effective meeting and how to ensure participation of a diverse set of stakeholders’.¹²

Facing the ecological and social crisis in their region, especially with falling fish stocks and high levels of indebtededness of SSFs to intermediaries, Istanbul Birlik has initiated a new project focusing on a “Direct Sales Model”. This model aims at increasing SSFs control over the fish they catch and the food they provide to consumers. Instead of depending on intermediaries who buy the fish for very cheap prices and add commissions at several points along the value chain until it reaches the final consumer in supermarkets, fish shops or restaurants, they intend to establish networks of direct sale. These would both give value to the producer and provide fish for cheaper prices to the final consumer, helping to make fish more accessible not only to middle or upper class consumers but also to poor and working class people. According to the head of Istanbul Birlik, the model will help to change the dominant perception in the current (capitalist) market system: “people would perceive fish not as a commodity, but as food”.¹³

The planned Direct Sales Model includes opening Co-op Shops (see Image 2) in different districts in Istanbul. Fish caught by Istanbul Birlik’s SSF members will be bought by the co-operatives themselves, at a fixed and fair price for fisher people. Istanbul Birlik would own its own transportation system with refrigerated trucks, and fish would then be sold in physical Co-op Shops. This direct access to the local markets will improve the economic situation of SSFs, and reduce their dependency on intermediaries who currently decide the price of fish.¹⁴ Co-op Shops would provide not only a market place but also some space for processing, cooking, and sale of the value-added products produced. The objective would be to employ especially women and young people, giving them more visibility and offering employment linked to the SSF sector.

Part of this Co-op’s space would be dedicated to cultural events such as fisher festivals, seminars, exhibitions, activities for children, and debates. These would help to increase awareness about SSF traditions, local species, the specific characteristics of the marine territory (i.e. the Northern Marmara Sea, the Bosphorus, and the Southwestern Black Sea) as well as the idea of CSFs. Design and construction of the space will be undertaken in collaboration with other stakeholders such as agroecological consumer initiatives; researchers; district municipalities; and interested civil society groups.

This project aims first at improving the situation of SSFs, beginning with the co-operative members of Istanbul Birlik. However, at the same time, it is a broader project to improve public knowledge about the seas, traditional ways of fishing, fisher communities, and the dynamics and social actors around fisheries food system. In recent decades thriving organic, agroecological, and/or local food movements have helped communities to discover the many rewards of rebuilding relationship with small-scale food providers.¹⁵ Reconnecting communities to traditional and small-scale fishers can provide many benefits.¹⁶ The name of the project – ‘Know Your Fisher Project’ — (see Image 1 below) alludes to this. The two main goals are: (i) to improve the contribution of SSFs to sustainable fishing, (ii) to improve consumers’ knowledge about SSFs and their practices, as well as to enable the access of consumers to cheap, high quality and just fish.

The experiences of CSF networks from United States and estimates for the alternative seafood marketing project and the proposed Co-op Shops (see Image 2 below) indicate that SSFs could expect a 30% increase in their income by implementing such a model.¹⁷ This would be an important step to overcome the indebted and marginalized economic situation of SSFs based on alternative economic models. To realise this plan, Istanbul Birlik has been meeting with district municipalities over the course of the last year to obtain a physical space with the support of the municipality, avoiding inflated commercial rents.

Since the most recent municipal elections, in Spring 2019, Istanbul Birlik has continued reaching out to the Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality (IMM), aiming to realise Co-op Shop models in 10 to 25 districts. Regular meetings have taken place between the IMM, agroecological consumption co-operatives and initiatives, and fisher co-operatives in order to collectively design such farmer/producer markets.

Today, there are about 30 agroecological consumer groups in Istanbul region. The first one was BÜKOOP (The Consumption Cooperative of Members of Bogazici University) founded in 2009, which was followed by others flourishing especially in the last 5 years. These are key allies to the ‘Know Your Fisher Project’ and SSFs and Istanbul Birlik are joining conversations and debates about how to link these initiatives to construct a social and solidarity economy, and about what kind of a structure would be possible in the context of Istanbul.

Such citizen and consumer initiatives, learning collectively and working to establish broader CSAs and CSFs, are critical players in the movement towards a just and more socially and ecologically sustainable food system, based on shared ideas on food sovereignty. Thus, this project and the initiatives of the Istanbul Birlik are becoming a crucial part of food sovereignty struggles around fisheries in Turkey and beyond.

Istanbul Birlik and the fisher co-operatives that are its members have been working hard to realise this project. They have designed it physically, developed financial estimates, and communicated internally to build consensus with and support from other members and possible allies. One of the main challenges is to find a suitable physical space, which would be in a central district but not impacted by speculative rental prices, which are usually very high within the city limits. This is where good communication becomes even more essential so that the project will be supported by the local municipalities and preferably the metropolitan municipality.

A second main limitation or challenge is related to issues of gender equality since very few fisherwomen are members of fisher co-operatives. Historically, most fisherwomen participating in fishing activities were not co-operative members either because their husbands were members and the structure of the co-operatives were not welcoming them, or because their activities were not recognised as fishing, because they were not going fishing on boats even though they engaged with fishing activities in their households. Recently, there have been attempts to gain more visibility for fisherwomen. For example, a fisherwoman who was not a member of the co-operative before — since her husband was a member — recently became a member of one of the co-operatives in Bosphorus and received a prize from one of the district municipalities for her contribution to the fishing sector. She was also honoured by Istanbul Birlik in its annual workshop in 2019 and was asked to share her story of going to fish secretly with her father and then with her father-in-law even though her husband was not supportive of her fishing.

Gender issues and the move towards gender equality in fisher co-operatives are complicated due to the patriarchal structures that have been very dominant until now. Addressing these issues to better recognise and support fisherwomen will require significant and sustained efforts both within member co-operatives and in Istanbul Birlik. However, being exposed to women in leadership positions, especially among indigenous WFFP members, has had a positive impact on this process. Meanwhile, collaborating with other CSAs and food sovereignty movements that have already been working on gender equality for some decades has had, and will continue to have, a positive impact in raising awareness and in finding ways to implement a gender balance within activities and organisations.

The initiatives and projects of Istanbul Birlik demonstrate the importance of democratic co-operative structures for small-scale fisheries and their dedication to improve members’ situations in order to confront the ecological, social, and economic crisis they are confronting. The alliances with other food sovereignty actors strengthen these movements and reinforce the politicisation that they are undergoing. One key element is the fisher-to-fisher learning enabled by regional and global fisher movements. A second is alliance building with other social actors, such as researchers, consumer groups, and movements for food sovereignty both locally and internationally. Therefore, strengthening internal structures, as well as constructing broader networks of solidarity where CSAs and CSFs intersect, are key tools to empower their movements and reach their goals. By forging this path, Birlik is building new connections between consumers and SSFs that are accessible to people of all economic backgrounds, while protecting traditional fisher cultures, and providing an alternative vision of just, sustainable, fisheries.

Coastal communities around the world base their cultural identity and economic sustenance on fishing. Activities that take place on boats tend to be the main images that come to mind when we think of fishing. These also happen to be the jobs that are dominated by men. However, besides the women who go out to sea, there are a whole range of pre- and post-harvest tasks that primarily women do, which sustain local fishing economies as well as households. From mending nets and gear, to keeping the books, from child care and job training to commercialization, women occupy diverse and essential roles in fisheries around the world. These contributions are important to sustaining households, and ensuring access to healthy diets for fisher families. And, as the FAO has estimated, small-scale fishers who mostly sell to local markets provide some two thirds of the fish destined for direct human consumption. Seen in this way, fishing communities play a crucial role in healthy food systems and the decisions made about fish at the local level: which fish can be caught, and which needs to stay in the water, which gear to use, which to dry and which to eat fresh, which market stand to buy from, how to clean or process them, and which recipe to prepare and how to cook are all important components of food sovereignty¹, and women in particular are regularly making these decisions and keeping these activities going.

In Indonesia, an archipelagic nation comprised of more than 17,000 islands, fishing is a way of life for over 6 million people and some 85-90% of the total catch is brought in by small scale fishers.² However large-scale infrastructure projects in the name of the president Jokowi’s Blue Revolution, that seeks to frame the country as the ‘World Maritime Axis’ are putting pressure on fishing communities and undermining food sovereignty in these places. Fueled by a total reorganization of ocean space under the banner of marine spatial planning, sand from the sea floor is being mined, shipped and piled up to redraw the Indonesian coastline, making space for new ports and logistic hubs, touristic development and high end real estate. This process of turning ocean space into new coastland is referred to as reclamation. As sand is moved from one place to another, ocean currents are disrupted, fish habitats are destroyed, and fishers themselves are being displaced to make way for new infrastructures positioned to integrate Indonesia’s peripheral regions into central trade and transport routes as well as to better position the country for global commerce.

This short article examines these processes through a feminist lens in order to understand the threats and opportunities for food sovereignty in fishing communities. Based on action research³ in these affected fishing communities, and in light of ongoing mobilizations against this kind of large-scale development logic and projects, we argue that women are key protagonists in the struggle for food sovereignty in fisher communities.

Makassar is one of the major port cities, being positioned by Jokowi as a central logistics and commerce hub in Indonesia. The two main infrastructure development projects currently underway in the region are the Makassar New Port (MNP, a national strategic project managed by state owned port management company, PT Pelindo IV), oriented towards shipping set to reclaim 1,428 ha; and the Central Point of Indonesia (CPI, managed by Ciputra Group and PT Yasmin Bumi Asri), which proposes to reclaim 156 ha geared towards tourism. To prevent protest of the CPI, a large mosque has been built on the site, which has limited resistance to CPI; however, the MNP has been the target of ongoing mobilization by fishers and allies.

The development of the MNP prevents fishers from accessing fishing grounds and coastal areas key to local livelihoods, for example around the villages of Tallo, Sengka, Batu and Buloa. In these communities the role of women in the local fishing economy is very important. One of the key fishing activities is only practiced by women: harvesting mussels, lingula and oysters on the sea shore. That said, women are working throughout the value-chain, from harvesting mussels, to washing them and taking them to market. They are also involved in post harvest activities of the boat-based fishery practiced primarily by men who use traps to catch crabs. Women often wash and sell the crab as well. They also dry fish and shrimp, but now with the construction of projects like CPI and MNP have limited access to the raw materials and are left without this important source of income.

The development of the MNP, which began in 2017, has been written into the marine spatial plan, which was approved with little consultation of fishers, even though the process was promised to be participatory. The construction of structures at sea has generated pollution on the shore and increase in mud and coastal erosion due to the waves carrying larger particles from the reclamation means that fishers have to go farther out to catch fish. Before MNP construction began fishers using boats used roughly 1,5 liters of fuel a day, now they use between 5 and 10 liters, and catch less fish. They both eat the fish themselves and sell it in local markets. They use the money to pay for the oil, household food, school and hospital fees for the family. Before they could earn between 300,000 IDR – 1M IDR a day but since the reclamation they do not earn more than 100,000 IDR a day.

While men and women alike are being negatively impacted and excluded from the places they fish and collect mussels, women especially are bearing the burden of a wide range of other consequences. We can see this in terms of the productive role of women (activities generating an income, job opportunities, paid employment), as well as relative to their role in social reproduction (which can be divided into two categories: domestic and care work to reproduce people/workers and ensuring the reproduction of the social system these people/workers live in).

First, in terms of economic production, according to fisherwomen in Tallo, the amount of mussels they collect has also declined by half from two baskets sacks bringing in around 100,000 – 120,000 IDR/day to one sack worth 50,000 IDR/day. Some fishers have stopped fishing altogether, because they don’t have access to their fishing grounds anymore, and therefore there are no possibilities to catch fish or harvest mussels anymore. This means that fisherwomen are forced to seek other jobs as informal warehouse workers where they are hired on a precarious day-to-day basis for 80,000 IDR/day.

Similar situations can be observed in Jakarta and Surabaya, where big infrastructure projects also have gendered impacts. Fadhilah Trya Wulandari interviewed women mussel collectors from the communities of Muara Baru and Kali Baru, in the context of the NCICD project in Jakarta Bay (a sea wall closing the Bay of Jakarta supposedly to avoid flooding). She notices that women observed an increase in the production costs after the projects, particularly because it increases the distance between the areas where mussels are processed and the area where they are sold.⁴ Therefore, the transport costs are increasing. The costs for investments have also increased because the gear used to raise mussels were negatively impacted by the project, and as a consequence, the owners of the aquaculture ponds reduced the salary of the women they employ to compensate those costs.

In parallel, women also observe a decrease in their incomes, because the pollution of the water is changing the growth rate of mussels and they become smaller in average. Women are paid depending on the number of kilogram of mussels they collect, so the smaller mussels are, the longer it takes to collect one kilogram.

To summarize, big infrastructure projects have two direct impacts on the production of women mussel harvesters. The space taken by the infrastructure is increasing production costs and the pollution created by the project is decreasing the availability of appropriate mussels and thus the income of women fish workers.

Second, in terms of social reproductive tasks in the household, the financial impacts are generally shouldered by the women who are traditionally seen as the financial managers of the family. The decline in incomes among fisher families has meant an increase in debts. Some of their children drop out of school, because they cannot pay the fees anymore. Worse still, child marriage (out of economic desperation) is increasingly frequent as a way of earning a dowry and relieving financial pressure from the family. Traditionally, women are seen as responsible for household accounting, so, the stress of making ends meet in these impossible circumstances falls primarily on the women’s shoulders.

Finally, as fishermen’s livelihoods are undermined, this can fuel what might be seen as a crisis of masculinity in a context where traditional patriarchal gender roles assume that men bring in the most money. As this is rendered impossible, interviews with local community organizers suggest that frustration and pressure are rising, as is domestic violence.

Lastly, the very often unseen and feminized labor of maintaining social cohesion, and community structures and norms is also impacted. There are several local NGOs in and around Makassar encouraging fisherfolk to take compensation from the government due to the negative impacts of the MNP. Unfortunately, the amount offered is quite low – around 1 million rupiah -, and ironically the women are often not consulted. Other fishers flat out reject compensation. This is causing further tensions within the community, which the women end up having to manage.

Women’s Solidarity organization, Solidaritas Perempuan (SP), argues that the process of marine spatial planning in Indonesia has been developed and implemented according to a patriarchal logic. “RZWP3K (the marine spatial plan) is allocating space to different sectors. Who is the most important in this? Some people will lose. In Indonesia there are patriarchal priorities – big projects. But for us creating jobs for women in fishing communities should be a priority, but they are not seen. Women are invisibilized and therefore will lose.”⁵

Indeed this lack of recognition of women is institutionalized by the state and within their own communities. Women are legally registered on their ID cards as the wives of fishers, rather than fishers themselves, even if they go to sea and contribute in many ways to local fishing economies. Insurance and public finance options don’t recognize women as fishers so they cannot get support from the government. Women have to have a marriage certificate to inherit property, and this is only possible if they become widowed, otherwise they cannot own property. And in the limited consultation processes that did take place in the development of the Makassar Marine Spatial Plan, women were not invited and could not give their contribution because they were not recognized as stakeholders. In the law it says that the head of the family is the man. Thus in the words of SP, “the law itself and policy specific to fisheries are patriarchal.”⁶ At the same time, their own husbands and other men in the community often claim that women aren’t needed in the process. Thus traditional fisherwomen’s perspectives are not being taken into consideration and their contributions are invisibilised. But in reality what they do is fundamental for subsistence. “The New Port is not about subsistence, it’s about big business.”⁷

This development logic has serious ecological implications as well. Therefore, as Buckingham-Hatfield (2000) describes, “women are disproportionately affected by negative environmental impacts because of their social and domestic roles and a greater likelihood of poverty.”⁸ As Kurniawaty from SP and Wulandari’s analyses show, environmental degradation is a form of discrimination, part of an oppressive system, institutionalized by policies that advance large-scale infrastructure development while invisibilising the rights and needs of women.

Mobilization and the way forward

These projects on the ground leading to displacement of fisher people not only have gendered impacts, but also gendered reactions and mobilizations. Solidaritas Perempuan Association (SP), formed in 1992, supports women’s mobilisation and provides feminist leadership training from its 11 offices across Indonesia. The vision of SP is to create a democratic social order, based on the principles of justice, ecological awareness, respect for pluralism, in an equal system regarding male and female relations, in which they can fairly share access to and control over natural, social, cultural, economic and political resources.

On the ground, SP has 76 members in Makassar, and is working particularly in fishing communities like Tallo, facing the impacts of the MNP development. They use popular education and action research, to analyze gendered impacts in Indonesian communities, and empower women so that they can fight the issues described here. The type of research methodologies they use prioritize women only spaces where they seek to raise awareness about what is happening in the communities and specifically to understand women’s perspectives, without men encroaching on the speaking space of women. “If we want to make working groups, which is important to work more easily, if women are in groups with men, then we won’t be heard. We need our own groups.”⁹ These groups are carefully collecting data and information about the MNP construction processes and its impacts in order to strengthen advocacy work. Community meetings organized in this way, thus, help to gather data about gendered impacts of big infrastructure development while also supporting women in organizing and building strategies to resist against big infrastructure development policies, deeply rooted in a patriarchal system.

In particular, SP members have analyzed how policy tools like marine spatial planning (MSP) are used by the national and provincial governments to justify and implement big infrastructure projects. MSP is described as a neutral tool to solve conflicts over ocean space, but as a recent report on the topic shows, gender bias is clearly evident in the way MSP is implemented on the ground, taking advantage of patriarchal cultural and institutional dynamics to keep women out of a decisions making process that is likely to impact them strongly.

This type of participatory action research has helped to create a vehicle for fisherwomen’s mobilization. On one hand, they have put pressure on government from outside the institutions, organizing multiple protests in front of the local government (DPRD for its initials in Indonesian), with hundreds of women to voice their concerns. And on the other hand, SP leaders have been invited to give public speeches inside the DPRD to insist on the gendered impacts caused by MSP.

In 2015, the “Aliansi Selamatkan Pesisir” (Save the Coast Alliance) was formed in order to push forward litigation against the CPI coastal development. This work was led by Walhi Sulsel (Friends of the Earth South Sulawesi) and Anging Mammiri joined on behalf of SP in order to strengthen the role of grassroots women in the alliance. The strong presence of SP on the ground also allows its members to put gender as a central issue in the coalition, raising awareness of other NGOs, which may be less aware of gender dynamics in the communities. This puts gender at the center of civil society organizing, helping to slowly address patriarchy within NGOs as well as bring a feminist analysis to the advocacy work.

Fishers, especially women are being stripped of their ability to fish, and maintain their autonomy from this work. By prioritizing large-scale infrastructure development to facilitate long distance trade and national economic growth, the autonomy and survival of local communities are at risk, and environmental destruction becomes another form of discrimination women have to face every day.

The food sovereignty agenda provides a critique of this global profit driven logic, which undermines the ecological and social health of the people who live and fish in those places of global commerce. Feminist perspectives articulated by SP dovetail nicely with this food sovereignty vision, emphasizing the importance of prioritizing the systems that ensure life and dignity. As the CPI and MNP construction barrels forward, the lives of entire coastal communities are put at risk. Taken together a feminist-food sovereignty agenda puts life and life ensuring activities like food production at the center of decision making. A gender sensitive food sovereignty analysis helps us pay closer attention specifically to the lives and needs of women and their diverse roles in the food system from food production to provision, among other things. This makes clear the need to challenge institutionalized patriarchy, which does not recognize these crucial contributions, as well as patriarchy within communities and civil society organizations. Therefore, the fact that SP is part of the CSO (civil society organizations) coalition and engaging inside and outside local institutions can be seen as a needed diversity of tactics to deconstruct patriarchal dynamics, within governmental institutions, within the civil society and within communities.

At the same time, these elements highlight the ways in which the small-scale food producers that keep local food economies going and marginalized communities fed, are being squeezed out and dispossessed in favor of global trade and investment.

This case also reveals the doubly important role of fisherwomen. On one hand, food producers are essential, given that the fruits of their labor, literally keep us all alive. But fisherwomen specifically do this as well as attend to the social reproduction of food producers themselves. Therefore, strong role in the struggle itself is highly needed, as they are often doubly impacted by big infrastructure development, as we describe above. The role of SP in the coalition, and the space they managed to create inside and outside the local parliament had a strong impact on women’s empowerment in the communities, who are now more actively engaging in and resisting infrastructure projects and the policies that justify them.

For food sovereignty advocates, the needs and perspectives of these life ensuring people are central to guiding the direction of change. Thus, the work of SP in providing spaces for cultivating feminist leadership and training among fisherwomen so that their voices and demands can be more powerful, is a crucial part of building food sovereignty. The example of Makassar is just one instance and similar cases can be observed all around Indonesia. SP has drawn on the experience in Makassar, for example to put gender as a central point of the “Save Jakarta Bay Coalition”. Indeed, as we have seen, the gendered impacts of the Jakarta NCICD project are really similar to those observed in Makassar, and the experience of SP is crucial for the feminist element of the struggle to move forward. Just as feminism and the leadership of women, especially those small-scale fisherwomen fighting to defend their livelihoods and communities, are crucial to the construction of food sovereignty.

¿Qué tanto “desarrollo”, “puestos de trabajo”, “bienestar” traen el libre comercio y las inversiones internacionales? Hace 26 años, México firmó el Tratado de Libre Comercio más agresivo del mundo, el TLCAN ², con Estados Unidos y Canadá; en el año 2000, firmó un acuerdo similar con la Unión Europea, actualmente en proceso de “modernización” ³. Hace años que los movimientos sociales mexicanos e internacionales denuncian los impactos de los acuerdos de libre comercio en sectores muy diferentes. Entre 2011 y 2014, durante la Sesión sobre el Capítulo México del Tribunal Permanente de los Pueblos que realizó un juicio popular al TLCAN, se dictaminó, tras el examen riguroso de 500 casos de violaciones de derechos humanos y colectivos, “una crisis humanitaria generalizada, que afecta a muy amplios sectores de la población y que ha llevado a una situación de crisis de Estado” ⁴. Desde entonces, este proceso no ha hecho más que profundizarse. Del 2 al 11 de diciembre de 2019, una Caravana de observación internacional (#ToxiTourMexico) recorrió de oeste a este el eje neovolcánico de México, atravesando densos corredores industriales que han atraído al capital estadounidense y europeo, entre otros. Las comunidades afectadas visibilizaron ante la Caravana una alarmante situación de urgencia ambiental y sanitaria, a la vez que un imponente ejemplo de organización, movilización y dignidad. En mayo de 2020, se reportó que el 78% de los decesos por COVID-19 en México se ubicaban en las regiones recorridas por la Caravana.

Foto: Martín Álvarez-Mullaly, OPSUR (#ToxiTourMexico, diciembre de 2019)

Los promotores iniciales de la “Caravana sobre los impactos sociales y ambientales de las empresas transnacionales y el libre comercio en México” fueron la Asamblea Nacional de Afectado/as Ambientales de México (ANAA) y el Equipo de Poder Corporativo del Transnational Institute (TNI). La ANAA, una red de 130 organizaciones indígenas, campesinas, sindicatos y ONG cuya labor gira en torno a los conflictos de justicia social y ambiental en México, convocó la Sesión sobre el Capítulo México del Tribunal Permanente de los Pueblos. ⁵El TNI facilita la Campaña Global para reivindicar la soberanía de los Pueblos, desmantelar el poder corporativo y poner fin a la impunidad ⁶, estrechamente vinculada con el proceso hacia un Tratado Vinculante de las Naciones Unidas que obligue a las empresas transnacionales a respetar los derechos humanos⁷.

La Caravana contó con la participación de representantes del Parlamento Europeo, del parlamento vasco, del Senado de Minnesota (Estados Unidos), así como de hombres y mujeres científicos y activistas de organizaciones de Alemania, Argentina, Ecuador, Estados Unidos, Francia, Cataluña, México, el País Vasco y los Países Bajos⁸. Fue acompañada además por representantes de la Secretaría de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales (SEMARNAT) y académico/as de la Unión de Científicos Comprometidos con la Sociedad (UCCS)⁹.

La principal motivación fue la visibilización de los efectos del libre comercio y de la presencia de las empresas transnacionales en México. Tal y como lo destaca el economista mexicano Andrés Barreda, es importante recordar que el neoliberalismo no solo ha generado paraísos fiscales, sino también paraísos industriales en las últimas décadas¹⁰. Un paraíso industrial es un espacio atractivo para las inversiones debido a la falta de cumplimiento de las normas sociales, laborales y ambientales más básicas. En ese sentido, México desempeña un papel cada vez más importante en la globalización neoliberal desde mediados de la década de 1990, gracias al Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte y al Acuerdo de Libre Comercio entre la Unión Europea y México, que podría ser reemplazado por un nuevo acuerdo recientemente concluido¹¹. Este país es utilizado por ambos bloques para externalizar los impactos sociales y ambientales de sus propias economías. Las empresas transnacionales pueden actuar con plena impunidad en México, dado que están protegidas por el mecanismo de solución de disputas inversor-Estado (ISDS) que se suele integrar en los tratados de libre comercio.

Desde la perspectiva de los derechos humanos, las consecuencias han sido desastrosas. Al respecto, Daniel Feierstein¹², miembro del jurado del Tribunal Permanente de los Pueblos – Capítulo México, señala que con el TLCAN se operó un proceso de destrucción social destinado a desmembrar y destruir la identidad del tejido social mexicano con el objetivo de imponer un nuevo modelo extractivo, productivo y de consumo. Este proceso implicó asesinatos selectivos de líderes sociales y ambientales, campesino/as, indígenas, periodistas, defensores/as de derechos humanos, feminicidios y una guerra social disimulada detrás de la supuesta lucha contra el narcotráfico. Se estima que entre 1997 y 2018 murieron, por lo menos, 400.000 personas a raíz de la violencia que involucra al crimen organizado, en complicidad con el gobierno¹³.

Durante el recorrido, los/as observadores/as internacionales realizaron visitas de campo y asistieron a encuentros con organizaciones locales en las seis siguientes regiones: Cuenca del Río Santiago (Jalisco); Cuenca de la Independencia (Guanajuato); Valle del Mezquital (Atitalaquia, Atotonilco, Tula y Apaxco), Hidalgo y Estado de México; Cuenca del Río Atoyac-Zahuapan, Tlaxcala; Estado de Puebla; y Norte del Istmo de Tehuantepec, Veracruz.. En cada región, representantes de las comunidades afectadas, acompañados por científico/as que han documentado los casos desde hace años, expusieron las repercusiones en la salud y el medio ambiente de los corredores industriales fomentados por el libre comercio.

El Salto, riberas del Río Santiago (Foto: Martín Álvarez-Mullaly, OPSUR - #ToxiTourMexico, diciembre de 2019)

La Caravana pudo constatar la existencia de corredores industriales consolidados en los últimos 20 años bajo el amparo de los tratados de libre comercio. Permitió observar in situ, cómo la ley acaba permitiendo la autorregulación ambiental de las empresas con el objetivo de atraer inversiones. Industrias de alto riesgo, actividades agroindustriales extensivas y operaciones extractivas coinciden con espacios urbanizados sin que se haga un seguimiento de los impactos sobre la salud de las poblaciones locales.

De forma generalizada, el panorama en las seis regiones generó gran preocupación entre los observadores y observadoras, al encontrarse ante una alarmante situación de urgencia ambiental y sanitaria. Se puso de manifiesto la sistemática contaminación del aire, el agua y el suelo; la destrucción de los ríos, lagos, bosques y tierras de cultivo; procesos de urbanización salvaje y de proliferación de basureros y lugares de vertido de desechos tóxicos extremadamente peligrosos, así como la destrucción de la salud y los tejidos comunitarios en las regiones donde se han instalado las industrias amparadas por el régimen de comercio e inversiones. Según la información recabada por informes toxicológicos dados a conocer durante el recorrido, los habitantes de las regiones visitadas presentan diversas enfermedades, como cáncer de hígado, riñón, piel y estómago, así como leucemia, mutaciones genéticas, abortos espontáneos, insuficiencia renal, fluorosis dental y esquelética, vinculadas con la actividad de las empresas en diferentes sectores.

Resultó evidente que a pesar de tener conocimiento de todo ello, los sucesivos gobiernos mexicanos no solo no han actuado hasta ahora, sino que además han invisibilizado los efectos ambientales, laborales y sociales ignorando las demandas y reivindicaciones de las comunidades afectadas; han contenido el descontento social a través de políticas de criminalización, represión y la siembra del terror en las organizaciones sociales mediante diversos grupos delictivos; y han facilitado la implementación de nuevos proyectos industriales y de megainfraestructuras que aumentan aún más los riesgos para la población local.

Por su parte, los gobiernos de los países de origen de las empresas extranjeras –fundamentalmente estadounidenses y europeas– que operan en los corredores industriales no vigilan el respeto de los derechos humanos, los derechos laborales y ambientales por parte de estas industrias, ni tampoco asumen ninguna responsabilidad ante los conflictos socioambientales que se generan. Asimismo, promueven la firma de tratados de libre comercio y de protección de inversiones, como el nuevo acuerdo entre la Unión Europea y México concluido en abril de 2020. Entre los elementos centrales del acuerdo, hay un capítulo sobre la protección de las inversiones¹⁵. México sería el primer país latinoamericano en firmar un tratado con Europa que incluya esta dimensión. Los beneficios para las empresas europeas son evidentes: el 35% de la inversión extranjera directa (IED) en México es de origen europeo¹⁶. Pero para el país latinoamericano, que ya se encuentra entre los cinco países más demandados del mundo (y el tercero de América Latina) por inversores extranjeros ante tribunales internacionales, este capítulo implica un riesgo considerable. Entre las 31 demandas de arbitraje que enfrentaba en 2019, siete fueron presentadas por empresas europeas (cinco españolas y dos francesas)¹⁷.

Uno de los elementos que más impactó a los observadores y observadoras internacionales radica en la capacidad de organización y de articulación de las resistencias que han desarrollado las comunidades afectadas en las seis regiones. Se hizo evidente que durante décadas, a pesar de la devastación socioambiental de sus territorios y de la agresión constante a su vida y su salud, han hecho un seguimiento de los impactos, desarrollando una gran capacidad de análisis colectivo e integrador del conjunto de dinámicas a las que se enfrentan, y se han vinculado con especialistas científicos con un alto compromiso social que han consolidado los diagnósticos populares. Los avances logrados por estas organizaciones tendrán impactos no solo en otras regiones a nivel nacional, sino también a nivel internacional.

A comienzos de 2020, el contexto de crisis sanitaria mundial genera una mayor preocupación para los y las observadores/as de la Caravana, en términos de los impactos que puede tener la pandemia sobre las comunidades afectadas visitadas. Esta preocupación se incrementa ante la reciente constatación por parte de las Secretarías de Medio Ambiente y Recursos Naturales, y de Salud, de que el 78% de los decesos por COVID19 parecen estarse concentrando en algunas de las regiones recorridas o bien en regiones de características muy similares a las recorridas por la Caravana¹⁸. En efecto, tal y como lo informaron las organizaciones en la reunión que mantuvieron el 6 de mayo de 2020 con SEMARNAT, la Secretaría de Salud y CONACYT, las seis regiones se encuentran en una situación de vulnerabilidad y desatención estructural, caracterizada por el deterioro del sistema inmunológico de sus habitantes, dada la prevalencia en dichas regiones de comorbilidades interactúan intensamente con el SARS Cov-2, como es el cas de enfermedades degenerativas como el cáncer, la insuficiencia renal, las enfermedades respiratorias, la diabetes, la obesidad, las enfermedades autoinmunes, entre otras¹⁹.

A continuación, sobre la base de datos recabados por integrantes de la ANAA²⁰ y de las observaciones in situ, exponemos brevemente los resultados preliminares²¹.
El Cuenca Lerma-Chapala-Santiago , caracterizada por el emplazamiento de grandes zonas industriales, manufactureras, urbanas y agropecuarias. Algunas de las más de 70 empresas transnacionales presentes en la región son: Nestlé, Huntsman, Forbo Siegling, Omya (Suiza), Pernord Ricard, Danone, Virbac (Francia), Mexikor, Valresa (Estado español), Nefab, Zassa Abloy, Concretos Apasco (Suecia), Operadora CICSA, Cytec (Bélgica), DSM Nutritional Products (Países Bajos), QTEK México Pentair Vales and Controls (Irlanda), Petosa, Siemens, Continental, WVoit, BDT, ZF Friedrichshafen AG, Salzgitter Mannesmann, Borgwarner y Hella Automotive (Alemania). Desde el año 2000, la población afectada comenzó a organizarse para exigir que se investigaran los impactos de los corredores industriales en la salud de la población²². En 2011, un estudio sobre la calidad del agua del Río Santiago, a cargo del Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua (IMTA), comprobó la presencia de 1.090 contaminantes, el incumplimiento de la laxa norma de descargas por el 94% de las industrias y el vertido de 507,5 toneladas diarias de contaminantes²³. A pesar de estos hallazgos, no se tomaron medidas de reparación o de atención a la población. Por otra parte, el Gobierno del Estado de Jalisco tardó 10 años en hacer público –y lo hizo únicamente en diciembre de 2019 como consecuencia de la presión popular– un estudio que había encargado a la Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí (UASLP). Los datos recabados sobre 300 niño/as de entre 6 y 12 años de El Salto, Puente Grande, Juanacatlán, Colonia Jalisco y Jardines de la Barranca pusieron en evidencia, entre otros: la presencia de arsénico en el 45% de los niño/as de Juanacatlán; de cadmio en 97,8% de los/as niños/as de El Salto; de mercurio en 59% de los/as niños/as de Puente Grande; de plomo en el 93,8% de los/as niños/as de Juanacatlán; y benceno en 73,7% de aquellos/as de Juanacatlán²⁴. Para las organizaciones de afectado/as, el muestreo constituye un reflejo de una realidad que aqueja al conjunto de la población. Denuncian que su región se ha sacrificado en aras del crecimiento económico y la generación de riqueza para las empresas mexicanas y extranjeras, y exigen la declaración de una Zona de Emergencia Ambiental y Sanitaria.

En lo que atañe a la Cuenca de la Independencia,las comunidades del Norte del Estado de Guanajuato denunciaron los impactos producidos por la agricultura de exportación (brócoli, espinaca, fresa, frutos rojos, maíz transgénico, entre otros) de las empresas transnacionales y por poderosos empresarios mexicanos que han participado históricamente en las tres ramas del gobierno. El agronegocio no solo ha perforado más de 3000 pozos profundos, de los cuales cada año se extraen millones de metros cúbicos de agua, sino que el uso intensivo de agroquímicos ha causado la contaminación grave de los suelos y del agua. Las personas que viven en la región padecen síntomas provocados por fluoruro y arsénico en particular, tales como: fluorosis dental, fluorosis esquelética, síntomas neurológicos, problemas de los riñones, insuficiencia renal, varios tipos de cáncer. Además, en San Miguel Allende se encontraron casos de cáncer de pulmón atribuidos a la exposición prolongada a erionita potásica.

La región está asimismo amenazada por la posible implementación del proyecto minero a cielo vierto “Cerro del Gallo” en Dolores Hidalgo. El permiso fue de momento denegado por SEMARNAT, pero los capitales interesados podrían apelar. En lo que atañe a las condiciones de trabajo, se denunció la explotación laboral extrema por parte de la industria, que emplea de forma temporal y en condiciones precarias a personas provenientes de comunidades indígenas del Sur del país. En esta región, las comunidades afirmaron que el agotamiento de los recursos naturales por la agroindustria ha obligado a un gran número de personas a migrar hacia los Estados Unidos. En el Sur del Estado, donde se ubica uno de los principales centros industriales del país, se informó sobre los impactos generados por la planta de Tekchem, que en el año 2000 registró explosiones de malatión, provocando la formación de una nube tóxica que afectó a la población a varios kilómetros a la redonda. También, se denunció el caso de la industria Química Central de México, clausurada en 2014 por la Procuraduría Federal de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA), que exigió a la empresa el retiro de miles de toneladas de contaminantes. A pesar de ello, la empresa sigue sin cumplir. La población local menciona el aumento de enfermedades respiratorias e inmunológicas, daños teratogénicos, malformaciones, además de problemas por intoxicación severa: dolor de cabeza, dolor de garganta, ardor de ojos y vómito.

El Valle del Mezquital. En esta región se ubican las ocho principales fábricas de cemento y cal del país (generando la cuarta parte del cemento de México), entre las cuales se destaca la planta de la transnacional francesa Lafarge-Holcim. Este tipo de industria representa un riesgo para la población, ya que su funcionamiento requiere de dos procesos altamente contaminantes: la extracción minera a cielo abierto y la transformación industrial del material a través de calor, que genera emisiones contaminantes. Además, se incineran basuras y diversos tipos de residuos industriales en hornos de cemento, utilizándose neumáticos, productos químicos, aceites caducados, entre otros. Esto provoca la presencia de dioxinas y furanos en el polvo que cubre cotidianamente los campos agrícolas y las ciudades de la región. Las comunidades reportaron asimismo impactos generados por las aguas residuales urbanas e industriales, procedentes de la Ciudad de México, y la explotación de minería no metálica a cielo abierto. A ello se suman las emisiones atmosféricas de una planta de refinación de Pemex, de una planta termoeléctrica de la CFE, y dos parques industriales y empresas procesadoras de alimentos, como Sigma Alimentos, Cargill, Barcel, Griffith, Bimbo y la Compañía Cerillera la Centra. En abril de 2013 explotó en cinco ocasiones una planta de agroquímicos ATC y se reportaron cuadros de envenenamiento en alrededor de 40.000 personas²⁵.

Durante una presentación organizada para la Caravana sobre otra de las regiones visitadas, la Cuenca del Río Atoyac-Zahuapan, River Basinel investigador Samuel Rosado²⁶ documentó cartográficamente cómo a partir de la firma del TLCAN se incrementó la presencia del capital estadounidense y alemán. En particular, entre 2011 y 2016, el sector automotriz presente en la región creció un 60%. A pesar de las promesas de generación de trabajo para las poblaciones locales a partir del establecimiento de los corredores industriales, Rosado mencionó que la industria manufacturera en Puebla y Tlaxcala sólo representa 16% de los puestos de trabajo.

Apoyándose en informes de CONAGUA y la CNDH, las comunidades afectadas reportaron la presencia de los siguientes contaminantes en el río: mercurio, níquel, plomo, cianuro, arsénico, cobre, cromo, cadmio, zinc, tolueno, dibromoclorometano, cloroformo, cloruro de vinilo, cloruro de metilo, fenoles, compuestos de benceno, nitritos y nitratos, fosfato y xilenos. De acuerdo con las denuncias presentadas por el Centro Fray Julián Garcés de Derechos Humanos y Desarrollo Local A.C. frente a la Red contra el Genocidio y la Impunidad en México, entre 2002 y 2016 más de 25.000 personas fallecieron de cáncer, 4.000 de ellas por insuficiencia renal y se contabilizaron más de 900 casos de abortos espontáneos. Asimismo, la Red estima que en promedio muere en la región una persona cada cuatro horas por alguna de estas causas²⁷.

En Puebla, otro de los paraísos industriales y agroindustriales visitados por la Caravana, las comunidades afectadas denunciaron la sobreexplotación de los acuíferos y los altos niveles de contaminación ocasionados por la industria manufacturera, automotriz (por ejemplo Volkswagen), porcina (Granjas Carroll-Smithfield y Driscolls) y minera. Cabe señalar que esta región fue en 2009 el epicentro de la pandemia del virus H1N1. Además, se denunció el continuo despojo de tierras causado por la implementación de diversos tipos de megaproyectos como las megagranjas de cerdos, la agroindustria de exportación, la minería a cielo abierto o los parques eólicos de la empresa española Iberdrola.

En el Norte del Istmo de Tehuantepec, la Caravana recorrió uno de los polos petroleros y petroquímicos más antiguos e importantes de América Latina, conformado por la Refinería Lázaro Cárdenas y el Complejo Petroquímico (CPQ) Cosoleacaque, establecidos en Minatitlán, Veracruz. En Coatzacoalcos se encuentra el CPQ Cangrejera (donde opera, por ejemplo, grupo español COBRA, propiedad de ACS), el CPQ Morelos, y el CPQ Pajaritos, cuya planta de clorados III sufrió una explosión en 2016 en la que murieron 32 trabajadores. En este último caso, las comunidades afectadas denuncian que más de 300.000 habitantes locales se vieron expuestos a las cenizas precipitadas por la explosión, que contenían un alto contenido de dioxinas y furanos policlorados. La región posee también el principal núcleo de ductos de fósiles industriales (oleoductos, gasoductos, gasolinoductos y ductos petroquímicos) que son objeto continuo de explosiones y derrames en el área de Nanchital, contaminando peligrosamente a la región.

Además de la contaminación permanente del Río Coatzacoalcos por el vertido de hidrocarburos en los humedales vecinos a los grandes centros industriales, las comunidades afectadas informaron que el almacenamiento a cielo abierto de coque en Jáltiplan de Morelos, por la empresa española García Munte (actualmente ADN Energía de México), provoca la dispersión de un polvo fino y de nubes tóxicas asociados a un gran número de enfermedades que aquejan a la población. Por otra parte, señalaron que de acuerdo con los pescadores locales, desde la instalación de la planta en 2013, observaron la mortandad de peces, tortugas y otras especies locales. Las comunidades campesinas también informaron de pérdidas en las cosechas de frutales y hortalizas. Por otra parte, se señaló que la planta de coque genera únicamente una veintena de puestos de trabajo y que los trabajadores tienen graves problemas de salud.

Primera reunión de la Caravana con el Secretario de Medio Ambiente de México, Víctor M. Toledo. (Foto: Martín Álvarez-Mullaly, OPSUR – #ToxiTourMexico, 11 de diciembre de 2019)
La Caravana contó con una cobertura mediática extraordinaria en los principales medios de comunicación (prensa, televisión, radio) de México y otros medios internacionales²⁸.

En términos de la incidencia política conseguida, cabe destacar que SEMARNAT acogió favorablemente los resultados de la Caravana en la primera reunión del 11 de diciembre de 2019, y el propio Secretario de Medio Ambiente informó públicamente al Presidente de México al respecto el 12 de diciembre²⁹. Tras la reunión, SEMARNAT publicó un comunicado de prensa³⁰. Posteriormente, tuvo lugar una segunda reunión con las comunidades afectadas, el 21 de enero de 2020, dónde éstas presentaron las 12 propuestas y SEMARNAT se comprometió a la elaboración de programas de restauración ecológica³¹. El 3 de marzo se celebró la tercera reunión, en la que el diálogo comenzó a involucrar a otros sectores del gobierno como la Secretaría de Salud, el Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONACYT), la Procuraduría de Protección al Ambiente (PROFEPA) y la Comisión Federal para la Protección contra Riesgos Sanitarios (COFEPRIS). Se acordó la creación de un grupo de coordinación interinstitucional para avanzar en la resolución integral de los problemas de contaminación y de salud en las regiones de emergencia ambiental (REA). Las comunidades afectadas aprovecharon para expresar su preocupación por el avance regional de nuevos megaproyectos, que amenazan con profundizar los procesos de contaminación, pérdida de biodiversidad, estrés hídrico, daños a la salud, y despojo³². Finalmente, la cuarta reunión tuvo lugar el 6 de mayo, contando con la participación de representantes de las comunidades afectadas, el Secretario de SEMARNAT, el Secretario de Salud, y la directora de CONACYT. Al tener lugar en pleno contexto del COVID-19, durante la reunión se resaltó la interconexión entre la salud ambiental y la salud humana, así como los riesgos mayores que la pandemia genera para las poblaciones de las seis regiones³³. La próxima reunión tendrá lugar el 6 de julio de 2020.

Foto: Martín Álvarez-Mullaly, OPSUR (#ToxiTourMexico, diciembre de 2019)

Tanto las comunidades afectadas como las diferentes organizaciones internacionales que participaron en la Caravana están elaborando informes que serán la base para las denuncias a nivel internacional de la preocupante situación observada. En términos de la difusión pública en el exterior, se alcanzó a organizar, antes de la crisis del coronavirus, una presentación en Ecuador ante la Confederación de Nacionalidades Indígenas (CONAIE), en el marco de la resistencia frente al libre comercio³⁴. Una iniciativa similar en Argentina se postergó para la segunda mitad de 2020, así como la gira en Europa y en Estados Unidos de representantes de las comunidades afectadas. Con el objetivo de exponer la responsabilidad pública y privada de la Unión Europea y de incidir en el proceso de firma y ratificación del nuevo acuerdo entre la Unión Europea y México, se planifican actos de incidencia ante el Parlamento Europeo, el Parlamento alemán, el Parlamento vasco así como organización de actos públicos en Francia, Alemania, el Estado español y Bélgica. Los resultados serán presentados igualmente en el mes de octubre durante el 6o período de sesiones del Grupo de Trabajo Intergubernamental de composición abierta (OEIGWG) del Consejo de Derechos Humanos cuyo mandato consiste en elaborar un instrumento vinculante sobre empresas transnacionales y derechos humanos.

Finalmente, desde las organizaciones que participaron en la Caravana se buscará consolidar las redes de solidaridad con las comunidades afectadas. Posiblemente hoy comienza una nueva etapa en México que permitirá luchar en forma eficaz contra la impunidad corporativa, y es más importante que nunca prestar atención a este proceso.

Principales empresas europeas presentes en las zonas visitadas

El Salto (Jalisco): Nestlé (Suiza), ZF (Alemania), Virbac (Francia), Continental (Alemania), BDT (Alemania), Mexikor (España), Nefab (Suecia), Pentair Vales and Controls de México (Irlanda), Cytec (Bélgica), DSM Nutritional Products (Países Bajos), Grupo Danone (Francia), QTEK México (Irlanda), Pernod Ricard (Francia), Forbo Siegling (Suiza), Omya (Suiza), Petosa (Alemania), Siemens (Alemania), Voit (Alemania), Assa Abloy (Suecia), Operadora CICSA (Bélgica), Hella Automotive (Alemania), Concretos Apasco (Suiza), Valresa (España).

Cuenca de la Independencia: Syngenta (China-Suiza), Bayer (Alemania), BASF (Alemania)

Valle del Mezquital: Lafarge-Holcim (Francia-Suiza)

Cuenca del Ayotac – Zahuapan: Volkswagen (Alemania), Audi (Alemania), ThyssenKrup, Bayer (Alemania), BASF (Alemania)

Puebla: Iberdrola (España), Lagermex (Alemania),

Norte del Istmo (Veracruz): García Munte (España), Grupo Cobra – ACS (España)