TTIP investor protection hype obscures more serious issues
Jonathan Lindsell, 28 April 2015
The EU-USA free trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, has been the target of protests over Europe for its perceived faults. The chief among these is the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS), which this blog has raised concern about for its potential harm to parliamentary sovereignty and to public health.
It will be difficult to know for certain until TTIP has been signed and in force for years, but there is every indication that the EU’s trade commissioner, Cecilia Malmström, is reforming ISDS to solve these initial concerns.
ISDS is included in the EU-Canada free trade deal, but its text makes clear the right for states to pursue public policy and environmental objectives. UN-level agreement will increase transparency through public access to ISDS data, and Malmström may push for arbitrations actually being filmed. The Commission is also discussing an appeals system, either within the TTIP framework or (as a more lasting solution) founding an international investor court. Meanwhile concerns that biased lawyers will be used in ISDS are being addressed by a proposal for the EU and US to nominate approved, neutral arbitrators before cases start.
Nevertheless, thousands are still protesting against TTIP or signing mass online petitions, mainly based on ISDS fears and German concern about data protection. Such protests were warranted since they made the Commission take notice and reform ISDS, but more attention should now be paid to other questionable aspects of the sprawling deal.
One worrying issue is a class of chemicals called endocrine disruptor compounds (EDCs), which are currently found in some pesticides, foods, and housekeeping products. The ingestion and buildup of EDCs has been linked to multiple cancers, infertility, autism, birth defects and other health complications. The Commission has been considering how and which EDCs to ban since 2009, but has repeatedly missed deadlines despite pressure from health groups and member states. Sweden is even suing the Commission over its tardiness, concerned that chemical industry lobbying is slowing the process, which was supposed to report in December 2013.
The TTIP link here is that, if the Commission agrees to too low a test for EDC safety with America, it will be very difficult to later introduce robust bans. American pharmaceutical companies are lobbying against the use of the ‘precautionary principle’, which would let the EC ban chemicals on the basis of strong suspicion from animal testing or cell line tests, rather than definite evidence of human effects.
Cosmetics are another TTIP worry, as the Commission announced ‘collaboration in scientific safety assessment methods’ – this sounds constructive but implies a weakening of citizen protection. The EU currently bans 1,300 such substances; America, 11. Trade negotiators for Europe may hold fast to European safety standards, but this is at least an aspect of TTIP as deserving of serious citizen interrogation and concern as ISDS. There is a danger that investor disputes become the totemic fixation and the only focus of amendment, allowing serious oversights in other areas of the deal