It took a while, but we’ve finally got a new international development strategy, with trade and investment at the heart of its commitments. But it fails to outline how trade deals will deliver positive outcomes for poverty reduction, human rights, sustainable development and the climate (UK’s new aid strategy condemned as ‘double whammy to world’s poor’, 16 May).
A development strategy should prioritise vulnerable communities, not seek to achieve UK geopolitical objectives or benefits for UK business. High volumes of foreign direct investment, as envisaged in the strategy, do not guarantee sustainable development. Inappropriate FDI can undermine sustainable development and increase inequality, resulting in forced displacement, exploitative working conditions, privatisation of public services, environmental damage, tax avoidance and a lack of corporate transparency.
Free trade does not guarantee prosperity if benefits are felt only by the richest. Low- and middle-income countries have already proposed measures, including a waiver for vaccine patents and more flexibility for governments to hold stocks of food as a buffer against global crises. But there is scant evidence that the UK government is listening to them.
Pro-development trade should be driven by local farmers, producers and workers. If this is not built into the strategy from the outset, the risk is that it instead benefits international investors and shareholders, or the UK’s economic and geopolitical interests.
To ensure trade and investment work in the interests of development and climate action, we need a coherent, cross-departmental trade strategy.
Ruth Bergan Director, Trade Justice Movement; Sandra Martinsone Policy manager, Bond; Alexander Carnwath Head of policy and advocacy, Traidcraft Exchange
• Have an opinion on anything you’ve read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication.
