Hardly anyone seems to know anything about the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, or TTIP. That’s not surprising because it’s being negotiated in considerable secrecy by EU and US trade representatives, yet could have widespread implications for Europe’s environmental policies and much else besides.
Minister for Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation Richard Bruton, who inaugurated the negotiations during Ireland’s presidency last year, is an unapologetic fan. He sees “huge potential” in the deal, saying studies show it “could create 400,000 extra jobs in the EU” and boost Europe’s economy by at least €100 billion.
The seventh round of talks began just as a new European Commission – structured by Jean-Claude Juncker in a way that seems to downgrade the environment as a policy priority – takes power in Brussels. And there are fears it may be more willing to compromise with the Americans on basic principles.
One of the core issues at stake is the right of countries to make regulations in the public interest. The US side is seeking to have enshrined a provision that would allow companies to seek redress for any “violations” of their investor rights through an arbitration tribunal set up under the deal, rather than the courts.
Take the Government’s plans for plain cigarette packaging. These are being fought not only by the tobacco companies but also by the US Chamber of Commerce in Brussels. If TTIP came into force in the way the Americans would like, they could sue for compensation over this “infringement of intellectual property rights”, bypassing the courts.
In other words, business would take precedence over what is clearly a measure intended to protect public health. And it wouldn’t be the first time. When Australia decided to introduce plain cigarette packaging, the Asian division of Phillip Morris threatened to sue under similar terms of a treaty with Hong Kong.
Key demands
Investor state dispute settlement, with an arbitration tribunal determining each case, is one of the key demands of US trade negotiators in the talks – although a report commissioned by the British government found that it was “likely to have few or no benefits to the UK, while having meaningful economic and political costs”.
In other words, it would sacrifice sovereignty on the altar of unfettered free trade, with big corporations calling the shots. This is backed by lobbies such as the Transatlantic Economic Council, which was set up in 2007 to press for more market deregulation, allowing free access to Europe for US goods and services.
Environmentalists fear these could include food products with genetically modified organisms (GMOs). But the commission insists basic laws, like those relating to GMOs, or that protect human life and health, animal health and welfare, or environment and consumer interests, will not be part of the negotiations.
However, the commission’s yielding to intense pressure from Canada and big oil companies over the classification of oil extracted from the tar sands of Alberta does not inspire confidence. Regulations to implement the 2009 fuel quality directive, adopted recently, fail to discriminate against what’s widely seen as the world’s dirtiest oil.
Neither is it encouraging to note that the list of “stakeholders” being consulted by the commission about TTIP is overwhelmingly corporate in character. According to the Corporate Europe Observatory, based in Brussels, at least 119 of the 130 meetings involving representatives of the commission were with big companies or corporate lobbyists.
A public consultation period that closed in mid-July drew more than 100,000 responses from all over Europe. Its aim, the commission said, was to ask citizens “whether the EU’s proposed approach to TTIP achieves the right balance between protecting investors and safeguarding the EU’s right and ability to regulate in the public interest”.
A coalition of more than 120 non-governmental organisations across Europe recently launched a “Stop TTIP” campaign, calling on commission president Juncker to revoke the EU’s negotiating mandate for the proposed deal unless it specifically excludes the controversial investor state dispute settlement mechanism.
Thousands took part in a European day of action against TTIP last Saturday, and more than 400,000 have signed a petition aimed at stopping the deal.
Fracking worries
At home, the Environmental Pillar (which represents 28 national groups) is concerned TTIP could “force Ireland to permit fracking against the will of the Irish people”. Under a similar agreement, the Canadian government was hit with a $250 million lawsuit from US oil and gas company Lone Pine Resources last year after Quebec banned fracking in the St Lawrence River basin.
Meanwhile, powerful US lobbies are lining up their own agendas about what should be included in TTIP. The American Israel Public Affairs Committee, for example, is said to be drafting legislation that would make the deal conditional on the EU taking action to counter the Palestinian-inspired boycott, divestment and sanctions campaign.
Tom Healy, director of the Nevin Economic Research Institute, has blogged on how “a lack of transparency [on TTIP] is adding to a sense of unease in relation to areas such as social, environmental and regulatory rights” and he asked whether it would be possible at this stage to “throw the bath water out without the baby”.
What he argued for would involve keeping the “good bits” of TTIP, “insofar as it encourages higher growth and employment , and ditch the ‘bad’ bits such as ISDS [investor state dispute settlement], mention of public services and those provisions that could undermine labour/environmental standards”. But right now, he said it was “hard to see any baby from the dirty water”.
Frank McDonald is Environment Editor
