scholarly journals Who influences nutrition policy space using international trade and investment agreements? A global stakeholder analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Garton ◽  
Boyd Swinburn ◽  
Anne Marie Thow
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Economic Growth ◽  
Food Environment ◽  
Stakeholder Analysis ◽  
Nutrition Policy ◽  
Public Health Nutrition ◽  
Policy Space ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Trade And Investment

Abstract Background Regulation of food environments is needed to address the global challenge of poor nutrition, yet policy inertia has been a problem. A common argument against regulation is potential conflict with binding commitments under international trade and investment agreements (TIAs). This study aimed to identify which actors and institutions, in different contexts, influence how TIAs are used to constrain policy space for improving food environments, and to describe their core beliefs, interests, resources and strategies, with the objective of informing strategic global action to preserve nutrition policy space. Methods We conducted a global stakeholder analysis applying the Advocacy Coalition Framework, based on existing academic literature and key informant interviews with international experts in trade and investment law and public health nutrition policy. Results We identified 12 types of actors who influence policy space in the food environment policy subsystem, relevant to TIAs. These actors hold various beliefs regarding the economic policy paradigm, the nature of obesity and dietary diseases as health problems, the role of government, and the role of industry in solving the health problem. We identified two primary competing coalitions: 1) a ‘public health nutrition’ coalition, which is overall supportive of and actively working to enact comprehensive food environment regulation; and 2) an ‘industry and economic growth’ focussed coalition, which places a higher priority on deregulation and is overall not supportive of comprehensive food environment regulation. The industry and economic growth coalition appears to be dominant, based on its relative power, resources and coordination. However, the public health nutrition coalition maintains influence through individual activism, collective lobbying and government pressure (e.g. by civil society), and expert knowledge generation. Conclusions Our analysis suggests that industry and economic growth-focussed coalitions are highly capable of leveraging networks, institutional structures and ideologies to their advantage, and are a formidable source of opposition acting to constrain nutrition policy space globally, including through TIAs. Opportunities for global public health nutrition coalitions to strengthen their influence in the support of nutrition policy space include strategic evidence generation and coalition-building through broader engagement and capacity-building.

scholarly journals International Trade and Investment Agreements as Barriers to Food Environment Regulation for Public Health Nutrition: A Realist Review

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly Garton ◽  
Anne Marie Thow ◽  
Boyd Swinburn
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
International Trade ◽  
Food Environment ◽  
Policy Design ◽  
Realist Review ◽  
Nutrition Policy ◽  
Fiscal Policies ◽  
Policy Space ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Trade And Investment

Background: Achieving healthy food systems will require regulation across the supply chain; however, binding international economic agreements may be constraining policy space for regulatory intervention in a way that limits uptake of ‘best-practice’ nutrition policy. A deeper understanding of the mechanisms through which this occurs, and under which conditions, can inform public health engagement with the economic policy sector. Methods: We conducted a realist review of nutrition, policy and legal literature to identify mechanisms through which international trade and investment agreements (TIAs) constrain policy space for priority food environment regulations to prevent non-communicable diseases (NCDs). Recommended regulations explored include fiscal policies, product bans, nutrition labelling, advertising restrictions, nutrient composition regulations, and procurement policies. The process involved 5 steps: initial conceptual framework development; search for relevant empirical literature; study selection and appraisal; data extraction; analysis and synthesis, and framework revision. Results: Twenty-six studies and 30 institutional records of formal trade/investment disputes or specific trade concerns (STCs) raised were included. We identified 13 cases in which TIA constraints on nutrition policy space could be observed. Significant constraints on nutrition policy space were documented with respect to fiscal policies, product bans, and labelling policies in 4 middle-income country jurisdictions, via 3 different TIAs. In 7 cases, trade-related concerns were raised but policies were ultimately preserved. Two of the included cases were ongoing at the time of analysis. TIAs constrained policy space through 1) TIA rules and principles (non- discrimination, necessity, international standards, transparency, intellectual property rights, expropriation, and fair and equitable treatment), and 2) interaction with policy design (objectives framed, products/services affected, nutrient thresholds chosen, formats, and time given to comment or implement). Contextual factors of importance included: actors/institutions, and political/regulatory context. Conclusion: Available evidence suggests that there are potential TIA contributors to policy inertia on nutrition. Strategic policy design can avoid most substantive constraints. However, process constraints in the name of good regulatory practice (investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), transparency, regulatory coherence, and harmonisation) pose a more serious threat of reducing government policy space to enact healthy food policies.

scholarly journals 17.B. Round table: Including public health considerations in trade and investment agreements

2020 ◽  
Vol 30 (Supplement_5) ◽  
Author(s):  
◽  
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Health Services ◽  
Trade Agreements ◽  
Access To Medicines ◽  
Policy Space ◽  
Health Services Access ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Policy Engagement ◽  
Trade And Investment

Abstract There is widespread recognition that trade and investment agreements (TIAs) can affect health services, access to medicines, NCD prevention (particularly related to tobacco, alcohol and unhealthy food) and health systems structures. In addition, these binding international economic agreements can constrain the policy space available for innovative, evidence-based health policymaking. Although TIAs can have positive outcomes for employment and economic growth, these benefits are only likely to accrue when governments are pro-active in implementing complementary policies to mitigate impacts on other sectors and to address potential inequalities arising. The aim of this panel session is to examine the ways in which TIAs can be designed to achieve economic goals while also protecting public health, and identify complementary policy measures that may be needed as well as strategies for strategic policy engagement. This panel will be hosted by the UK-PRP PETRA Network (Prevention of the noncommunicable disease using trade agreements). The UK will be negotiating a range of new TIAs over the coming years, representing a window of opportunity for strategic engagement with policymakers regarding how public health can be protected and promoted within these agreements. There is an emerging global body of evidence regarding how consideration of health can be integrated into TIAs, both textually and through strategic engagement with policymakers before and during the negotiation phase. Experience to date indicates common global challenges and opportunities for health and trade, as well as significant potential for cross country learning regarding trade and health. The panel discussion will use the UK experience as a springboard to address these global issues. The expert panel, drawn from the PETRA Network with expertise in political economy, trade law, economics and public health advocacy, will provide brief overview of the current issues in trade and health and how public health can be protected in trade agreements. The 5-minute panel presentations will briefly summarise how inclusions in TIAs can support and protect policy space for health systems and health services, access to medicines, NCD prevention, and nutrition and food systems. The session will then open for a roundtable discussion among participants regarding 1) country-specific examples and questions regarding health protections; 2) experiences related to health-trade policy engagement; 3) lessons for elevating health on the political agenda, particularly regarding trade. (Note that if there are more than 16 participants, then the workshop will split into small groups for discussion with panel/ PETRA Network resource people. The panel session and discussion will provide the basis for a planned public health-oriented briefing note by the PETRA Network on including public health considerations in trade and investment agreements. Key messages Including consideration of health in trade and investment, agreements can protect policy autonomy for public health and promote good public health outcomes; In order to promote consideration of public health in trade and investment agreements, strategic engagement with trade policymakers before and during the negotiation period is critical.

scholarly journals The politics of developing reference standards for nutrient intakes: the case of Australia and New Zealand

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 (9) ◽  
pp. 1531-1539 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanthi Thuraisingam ◽  
Lynn Riddell ◽  
Kay Cook ◽  
Mark Lawrence
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
New Zealand ◽  
Nutrition Policy ◽  
Future Application ◽  
Freedom Of Information ◽  
Public Health Nutrition ◽  
Policy Document ◽  
Dietary Adequacy ◽  
Nutrition Policies ◽  
Key Stakeholders

AbstractObjectiveNutrient Reference Values (NRV) are evidence-based benchmarks for assessing the dietary adequacy of individuals and population groups as well as informing public health nutrition policies and programmes. The present paper presents the findings of an analysis of the views of submitters to a draft document associated with the development of the 2006 NRV for Australia and New Zealand. The aim of the study was to explore how these views were reflected in the policy-making process and final policy document.DesignThe information necessary to fulfil this aim required access to stakeholder submissions to the NRV development process and this necessitated exploiting the provisions of the Commonwealth of Australia’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Act 1982. We understand that the present research represents the first time that an FOI request seeking information about a National Health and Medical Research Council food and nutrition policy process has been made and therefore is novel in its approach to public health nutrition policy analysis.ResultsThe analysis of stakeholder submissions identified that stakeholders had particular concerns about the conduct of the review process and the future application of the nutrient values to policy and programmes. There is a lack of evidence that the majority of stakeholder comments were addressed in the final NRV document.ConclusionAlthough these findings cannot be interpreted to assess the validity or otherwise of the set nutrient values, they do raise questions about the process for their development and the adequacy of the final document to reflect the views of key stakeholders.

The Role of the Court of Justice of the European Union in the Emerging EU Investment Policy

2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 570-584 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Herrmann
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Direct Investment ◽  
Investment Policy ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Policy Documents ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Trade And Investment

The transfer of an exclusive competence for “foreign direct investment” to the European Union (eu) in the Lisbon Treaty (2009) has raised numerous legal questions and has tasked the eu institutions with developing a policy field almost entirely new to them. One of the matters that requires thorough consideration is the role the Court of Justice of the European Union (cjeu) will enjoy with regard to this new policy, which role it may be given in investment agreements of the eu or to what extent its role may legally be excluded or diminished by iias. The policy documents published so far as well as leaked text of envisaged investment chapters of future eu trade and investment agreements disregard this matter entirely. Nevertheless, the cjeu will play a role on the basis of the provisions of the eu Treaties and it is largely for the Court itself to determine that role.

scholarly journals Using political science to progress public health nutrition: a systematic review

2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (11) ◽  
pp. 2070-2078 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katherine Cullerton ◽  
Timothy Donnet ◽  
Amanda Lee ◽  
Danielle Gallegos
Keyword(s):  
Public Health ◽  
Political Science ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Nutrition Policy ◽  
High Income ◽  
Basic Knowledge ◽  
Process Theory ◽  
Public Health Nutrition ◽  
Policy Making Process

AbstractObjectivePoor dietary intake is the most important behavioural risk factor affecting health globally. Despite this, there has been little investment in public health nutrition policy actions. Policy process theories from the field of political science can aid understanding why policy decisions have occurred and identify how to influence ongoing or future initiatives. The present review aims to examine public health nutrition policy literature and identify whether a policy process theory has been used to analyse the process.DesignElectronic databases were searched systematically for studies examining policy making in public health nutrition in high-income, democratic countries.SettingInternational, national, state and local government jurisdictions within high-income, democratic countries.SubjectsIndividuals and organisations involved in the nutrition policy-making process.ResultsSixty-three studies met the eligibility criteria, most were conducted in the USA and a majority focused on obesity. The analysis demonstrates an accelerating trend in the number of nutrition policy papers published annually and an increase in the diversity of nutrition topics examined. The use of policy process theory was observed from 2003; however, it was utilised by only 14 % of the reviewed papers.ConclusionsThere is limited research into the nutrition policy process in high-income countries. While there has been a small increase in the use of policy process theory from 2003, an opportunity to expand its use is evident. We suggest that nutrition policy making would benefit from a pragmatic approach that ensures those trying to influence or understand the policy-making process are equipped with basic knowledge around these theories.

Normative Intersections of Trade, Investment and Sustainability Measures

2021 ◽  
pp. 47-74
Author(s):  
Marie-Claire Cordonier Segger
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Social Development ◽  
Trade Liberalization ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
The Third ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Investment Agreement ◽  
Investment Agreements ◽  
Trade And Investment ◽  
Domestic Level

This chapter briefly discusses the three ‘key points of tension’ or normative effects identified between the demands of trade and investment agreements that focus mainly on economic growth, and regulations for the environmental and social development, including the efforts of States to comply with specific trade and investment obligations in other international treaties. These points of tension are described and illustrated with interesting examples. The first tension involves the concern that new trade liberalization obligations of non-discrimination and most-favoured nation (MFN) treatment and new investment liberalization obligations, in certain specific sectors, could prevent States from effectively enacting trade-related measures to prevent unsustainable development. A second tension involves concerns that through a new trade and investment agreement, there will be increased incentives for trade or investment-led economic growth, which can exacerbate environmental and social problems that already exist at the domestic level due to lack of enforcement of the law. The third tension involves concerns that application of trade or investment rules for liberalization will inadvertently support unsustainable growth in obsolete technologies and sectors.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document