Browsing by Author "Sainio, Hanna-Kaisa Maaria"

The aim of this thesis is to find out what kind of sustainability thinking the EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement, more specifically the Trade and Sustainable Development Chapter, represents, how well it considers the various aspects and views of sustainability, and what kinds of knowledges and ideologies have been relied upon in the agreement negotiations and decisions. Qualitative content analysis was chosen as the method, so that the thematic interviews as the primary source would remain at the centre of the research. The reviewed literature clarified the background for the prolonged negotiations as well as changes in the trade world, guiding in the search for a diversity of voices and a broader understanding of the situation. The analytical framework is derived from Leech et al. (2010) on sustainability pathways, in order to guide the analysis of decisions and actions related to the EU-Mercosur FTA, from deforestation and local communities to global guidelines and the role of development and financial institutions, and from technical and scientific expertise to needs and wellbeing thinking. This study reveals several challenges in the agreement and in the ecological, economic and social aspects of sustainability, highlighting the unlimited growth ideology and current economic model, varying stakeholder involvement and narrow sustainability thinking. In accordance with previous research results, the inclusion of global environmental guidelines in the agreement would not lead to major changes in practice due to the lack of regulated implementation, monitoring and sanctions. Sustainability as an idea seems to be a common goal, yet becomes problematic with the unequal chances for participation between stakeholders, from lack of transparency to poorly implemented participation mechanisms, resulting in stronger corporation power and superficial involvement of civil society and marginalised groups. The kind of expertise and knowledge used in the negotiation process deepens this division and leads to continuing on the prevailing path of sustainable development led by the global economy and bypassing other dimensions of sustainability, paths that would challenge the widely dominant technocratic, neocolonial thinking.