ISDS: ACTA by the Back Door?

As I noted in my last TTIP update, things are beginning to get moving again on this front. One reflection of the growing interesting in this important trade and investment agreement was the public discussion entitled "Internet, Trade and Democracy: Transatlantic Relations under the Shadow of Surveillance", held in Berlin, and organised by Internet & Society Collaboratory and the blogger project FutureChallenges.org of the Bertelsmann Stiftung.

On Open Enterprise blog.

TTIP Update III

It's been fairly quiet on the TAFTA/TTIP front recently. That's largely because Europe shuts down for its summer hols during August, and has only just got going again. Unfortunately (for TAFTA/TTIP), the next round of negotiations has just been cancelled because the US administration was busy being, er, not busy. But as a consolation prize, we have a couple of documents from the European Commission on the subject of Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS), which by a happy coincidence was the subject of my previous TTIP Update.

On Open Enterprise blog.

US Free Trade Agreements Are Bad Not Just For The Economy, But For The Environment, Too

A couple of months ago, we reported on some interesting research into the reality of US trade agreements, in contrast to the rosy pictures always painted when they are being sold to the public by politicians. In particular, it turned out that far from boosting US exports and creating more jobs, both the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and KORUS, the free trade agreement with South Korea, actually did the opposite -- increasing the US trade deficit with those countries, and destroying hundreds of thousands of American jobs. 

On Techdirt.

UK Government Study Tries To Gloss Over TAFTA/TTIP's Problems With Impossibly Precise Figures

As Europe gets back down to business after its traditional summer break, the second round of the negotiations for the proposed TAFTA/TTIP treaty is beginning. And so is the pro-treaty propaganda. Here, for example, is a 70-page document entitled "TTIP and the Fifty States: Jobs and Growth from Coast to Coast" (pdf). It comes from the British government, and is aimed at convincing the US states that TAFTA/TTIP will be good for their economies and citizens. 

On Techdirt.

TPP Negotiations Deprive New Zealanders Of Promised Copyright Consultation -- For Secret Reasons

One of the myths perpetuated by governments taking part in major international treaty negotiations like ACTA, TPP and TAFTA/TTIP is that somehow no national sovereignty is given up during the process, and that therefore the public shouldn't worry about what goes on in those secret meetings. That's clearly absurd, because negotiations involve concessions, usually by the weaker parties, which often touch on national competences. 

On Techdirt.

Trade Agreements With Mexico And South Korea Turned Out To Be Disasters For US: So Why Pursue TPP And TAFTA/TTIP?

Two massive trade agreements currently being negotiated -- TPP and TAFTA/TTIP -- could potentially affect most people on this planet, either directly or indirectly through the knock-on effects. Like all such agreements, they have been justified on the grounds that everyone wins: trade is boosted, prices drop, profits rise and jobs are created. That's why it's been hard to argue against TPP or TAFTA -- after all, who doesn't want all those things? 

On Techdirt.

TTIP Update I

At the start of this year I flagged up the likelihood that hugely important trade negotations between the EU and US would start in due course. A few months later, I gave some more background to that move, as well as the text of a document calling for the participants to avoid repeating the grave mistakes of ACTA, which ultimately led to that agreement being rejected in the European Parliament on July 4 last year.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Urgent: Please Contact MEPs Now for Spying/TAFTA Vote

As you will have noticed, European politicians have suddenly become rather interested in the revelations about NSA spying now that it seems that they, too, have been targeted. This led to a three-hour long debate in the European Parliament yesterday, which was striking for the number of speakers calling for the imminents TAFTA/TTIP trade negotiations to be postponed until after the US has responded to the allegations - and promised to behave better in the future.

On Open Enterprise blog.

Leaked EU Policy Papers Show TAFTA/TTIP's Huge Challenges -- And Some Subtle Signals

After last Wednesday's debate, the European Parliament passed a resolution on the subject of NSA surveillance, which included the following mild wrist-slap: 

On Techdirt.

Controversial EU Data Protection Regulation May Be Negotiated In Secret In Breach Of Parliamentary Process

Today, the European Parliament held a three-hour long debate on PRISM, Tempora and what the EU response should be. Many wanted TAFTA/TTIP put on hold; others didn't. But one theme cropped up again and again: the need for strong data protection laws that would offer at least some legal protection against massive and unregulated transfer of Europeans' personal data to the US. 

On Techdirt.

People Begin To Wake Up To Massive Dangers Of Investor-State Dispute Resolution

Techdirt has been writing about investor-state dispute resolution (ISDR) mechanisms in international trade treaties like TPP and TAFTA/TTIP for two main reasons. First, because of the scale involved: ISDR allows companies to sue entire countries for huge sums, alleging loss of future profits. And secondly, because few seem aware of this growing threat to the national sovereignty of many countries around the world. That finally seems to be changing, with a number of articles warning about the dangers of ISDR appearing recently. 

On Techdirt.

EU Mandate For TAFTA Leaked: Includes Investor-State Dispute Resolution For Intellectual Monopolies

One of the concerns about TAFTA/TTIP is that it would repeat the mistakes of ACTA and SOPA as far as intellectual monopolies were concerned. This led to a call by a group of public interest organizations for things like copyright and patents to be excluded from TAFTA (disclosure: I was involved in the drawing up of the text.) Needless to say, no notice was taken of that, and a couple of weeks ago the European Parliament duly passed a resolution on TAFTA that said: 

On Techdirt.

US-EU Trade Deal In Trouble Before It Even Starts?

For the last few months, Techdirt has been following the surprisingly rapid embrace on both sides of the Atlantic of the proposed transatlantic free trade agreement, known variously as TAFTA or TTIP. Coming out of nowhere, the agreement is being talked about as if its success and benefits are more or less guaranteed. 

On Techdirt.

EU Commission Sued For Refusing To Reveal Trade Agreement Documents They Shared With Lobbyists

A recurrent theme here on Techdirt is the lack of transparency when international agreements and treaties are being drawn up. That's increasingly recognized not just as problematic, but simply unacceptable in an age when the Internet makes it easy to provide both access to draft documents and a way for the public to offer comments on them. 

On Techdirt.

TTIP's "Science-based" Assault on Democracy Begins

Last month I predicted that one of the main tropes that would be used in the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations would by that of "science-based" policy. As I pointed out then, this is a trick, since the "science" actually consists of work by scientists working for big companies that want to push their products with minimal health and safety oversight by independent laboratories.

A great article from Public Citizen shows that this line of attack has already been deployed in a series of submissions hammering home the idea to both the US and EU delegations:

Food Safety

• “Science-based risk assessment, as the foundation for regulatory decisions, must not be overruled by an incorrect (and politically driven) application of the precautionary principle, as currently applied by the EU” (Croplife America, a lobbying group of U.S. pesticide corporations that includes genetically-modified-organism (GMO) giant Monsanto)
• “Finally, the EU’s political approach in regulating crops enhanced with traits achieved through modern biotechnology procedures is a concern to U.S. wheat producers. The EU biotechnology approval process is slow and often influenced more by politics than science, creating uncertainty and deterring new investment in wheat research… Science and market preferences, not politics, should be the determinants.” (U.S. Wheat Associates)
• “The current 'asynchronous approval' situation is caused by many factors, including risk assessment guidelines that are not aligned and increasing politically-motivated delays in product approvals.” (National Grain & Feed Association and North American Export Grain Association, lobbying groups comprised of the largest U.S. agribusinesses, such as Cargill and Archer Daniels Midland)
• “International trade rules fully support trade in products of biotechnology for planting, processing and marketing, subject to science-based regulation… Politically motivated bans or moratoria by WTO member states are not consistent with members’ WTO obligations.” (National Corn Growers Association)
• “The implementation of production standards based on politics or popular thought instead of science will do nothing more than eliminate family operations and drive up costs to consumers.” (National Cattlemen's Beef Association, a factory-farm-supporting lobbying group for the beef industry)
• “What is deeply concerning about the EU’s overall approach to SPS [sanitary and phytosanitary] issues, however, is that its political body is frequently given the ability to override the EU’s own scientific authority’s findings to instead establish restrictions on products based typically on animal welfare or consumer preferences.” (National Milk Producers Federation & U.S. Dairy Export Council)

 Product Safety

• “Significant barriers to further alignment, namely politics and differences in regulatory approach, remain on both sides of the Atlantic. Our experience has also shown that politics and differences in regulatory philosophy are fundamentally the root causes for differences in toy safety standards… Frequently, standards that are stricter than their international counterparts are promulgated due to political influence or the (often unstated) desire to erect technical barriers to trade, and not predicated by science or risk factors.” (Toy Industry Association and Toy Industries of Europe)
• “We would like to highlight the fact that these regulatory differences are often politically motivated… We regret that the differences in regulations in the EU and US are often caused by the result of politics rather than a different approach to ensuring safety.” (Toy Industries of Europe)
• “Such discussions need to take place between technical, not political or administrative, entities and need to make business sense for the organizations involved.” (ASME, a lobbying group for engineers -- the first U.S. "non-profit" entity convicted for violating antitrust laws)

Some of the statements there are truly incredible - for example, the idea that animal  welfare or consumer preferences have no place in a country's trade policy, or that standards "stricter than their international counterparts" are somehow bad, and should be forbidden (isn't that what we should be striving for - doing better than the average?)  The latter also confirms what I've noted elsewhere: that the only way TTIP can "succeed" on its own terms is if all health and safety standards are levelled *downwards*, to the detriment of the public.

But the most significant point that emerges from the above is the false opposition between that "science-based" method and the "politically-motivated" approach.  As rightly pointed out by Public Citizen:

the "political" bodies the corporations fear are the democratically elected representatives of the people.  

Without realising it, the corporations are revealing their profound contempt for democracy, and for the right of citizens to choose the laws that govern them.  Instead, the huge multi-nationals are asserting the primacy of profit - and of their right to over-rule local laws.  I've warned about this previously, specifically in the case of Monsanto, but it's still frightening to see the naked expression by companies of their desire to see law trumped by lucre.

Why has Monsanto "Quit" Europe? The Answer is ISDS in TAFTA/TTIP

The battle to bring GM food to Europe has been fiercely fought for years.  Most assumed it would be continue to rage for many more. Which makes this recent announcement extremely surprising:

The world's largest producer of seeds, Monsanto, has apparently given up on attempts to spread its genetically modified plant varieties in Europe. A German media report said the firm would end all lobbying for approval.

The German newspaper "taz" reported Friday that US agriculture behemoth Monsanto had dropped any plans to have farmers grow its genetically modified (GM) plant varieties in Europe.

Monsanto Europe spokesman Brandon Mitchener was quoted as saying the company would no longer engage in any lobbying fur such plants on the continent, adding that at the moment the firm was unwilling to apply for approval of any GM plants.

This is very curious.  Monsanto may be many things, but it is not a company that  gives up.  However, there is a clue in the last sentence of the above quotation: "at the moment the firm was unwilling to apply for approval of any GM plants". That suggests this is only a temporary halt, and that it will be back.

So why might it do that? Is there anything happening that might have triggered this move?

Why, yes: TAFTA/TTIP.  In fact, the issue of GM crops is likely to be one of the biggest sticking points.  The US side is insisting that "Sanitary and Phytosanitary" (SPS) measures must address GM foodstuffs, with the European side adamant that it won't drop its precautionary principle.

So how might that apparent contradiction be resolved?  A recent meeting on SPS gives a clue:

WTO members celebrated the 50th anniversary of 186-member Codex Alimentarius, which sets international standards for food safety, by calling, on 27–28 June 2013, for continued support for the body, and for trade measures to be based on science.

The calls came in a two-day meeting of the WTO’s Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS) Committee, which consists of all 159 WTO members and deals with food safety and animal and plant health — measures having an increasing impact on trade. 

 Specifically:

“The increase in the number of SPS measures that are not based on international standards, guidelines and recommendations, or that lack scientific justification, is a point of concern that has often been raised by many members in the SPS Committee and other contexts,” Brazil observed.

The discussion of the six new specific trade concerns and the 10 previously raised and discussed in this meeting reflected that theme.

They covered; processed meat, genetically modified organisms (GMOs), restrictions related to the Japanese nuclear plant accident, orchid tissue culture plantlets in flasks, citrus fruits (a complaint by South Africa against the EU about black spot, which is the first dispute settlement case in the International Plant Protection Convention), offal, salmon, pesticide residues, sheepmeat, phthalates (materials added to plastics in food and drink containers) in wines and spirits, shrimp, mad cow disease (BSE), GMO pollen in honey, Indonesia’s port closures, and pine trees and other products.

As can be seen there, GMOs are mentioned twice.

Well, "trade measures to be based on science" sounds reasonable enough, doesn't it?  Except, as I've discussed at some length recently, the "science" actually means "scientists employed by companies"; that is, it is far from being independent or disinterested.  By redefining such company testing as "scientific", it can then be used to push through products that have never been tested by national food safety bodies.

This approach seems certain to crop up during the TAFTA/TTIP negotiations, and would offer Monsanto a fresh opportunity to push its GM products in the EU.  What it will be aiming for is that US "testing" must be accepted in the EU too - that's precisely what TAFTA/TTIP is all about - which would mean automatic approval for its products there.  Hence the recent pull-out - it won't even need to make applications in the future.

But it gets even better for Monsanto.  Another key area for TAFTA/TTIP is investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS).  Again, I've written extensively about this elsewhere. Here I just want to explore how Monsanto might use it to blackmail European governments into accepting GM crops.

Essentially, ISDS allows companies to sue entire countries or even regions like the EU for alleged loss of future profits (see this terrifying example from Canada.)  So once TAFTA/TTIP is signed with ISDS provisions, Monsanto will be able to threaten to sue the EU and its member states if they don't allow its GM products to be sold there.  

The logic would be that it invested money in Europe in the "reasonable" expectation - based on "science", of course - that it could sell its products as a result.  Since the EU authorities and national governments have proved so hostile to GM, it was unable to do that.  It would therefore claim that it could sue the EU for hundreds of millions - possibly billions - of  Euros for its "lost" profits.

This is not some mad fantasy: it is already playing out around the world, as governments find that they cannot apply laws designed to protect public health and safety, since they would have the knock-on effect of reducing some multinational's profits, and therefore makes them subject to ISDS claims.

I believe this is the main reason for Monsanto's temporary pull-out from the European approvals process: it feels confident that ISDS provisions will be included in TAFTA/TTIP - indeed, both the EU and US sides have said they want them - and equally confident that it will be able to sue the socks off the EU and national states if they don't simply wave through GM products in their markets, no further approval required....

What New-Style Trade Agreements Are Really About (Hint: It's Not Trade)

Given the massive impact that new-style trade agreements like TPP and TAFTA/TTIP are likely to have on the lives of hundreds of millions of people, it's surprising how few members of the public know about what's being negotiated in their name. Fortunately, publications are starting to run more articles on the subject, like this great piece by David Brodwin in US News. 

On Techdirt.

US Demands Transparency Everywhere -- But Only From Everyone Else

Techdirt has written about the Special 301 report many times, but that's not the only US government publication putting other countries on the naughty step. Another is the less well-known National Trade Estimate Report on Foreign Trade Barriers (pdf): 

On Techdirt.

Not Learning From ACTA: IPR Protection And Enforcement Seen As 'Less Difficult Issue' For TAFTA/TTIP

Despite increasing calls for the imminent TAFTA/TTIP trade negotiations to be conducted as openly as possible, it seems likely that, as with ACTA and TPP, everything will be decided behind closed doors. That means the rest of us are forced to take our information about what is likely to happen where we can find it. For example, a new survey entitled "The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership: Ambitious but Achievable" (pdf), carried out by The Bertelsmann Foundation and Atlantic Council, offers some interesting thoughts on the subject. Here's the description: 

On Techdirt.

Please Write to MEPs *Now* about TAFTA/TTIP

Sorry to trouble you again this week, but there's an important vote in INTA today (25 April) on the transatlantic trade agreement (TAFTA/TTIP), and there are some crucial issues that you might like to convey to your MEP, especially if they are on the INTA committee. 

On Open Enterprise blog.