The European Union Trades off Tarif Measures on Alcohol in order to Protect over 200 Geographical Indications
TTIP: EU seeking special protection for over 200 food, wine and spirits names
March 23, 2016 5:10 pm
The European Commission is seeking special protection under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement for over 200 agri-food names produced locally in the EU. If accepted by the US, it would be the highest number secured in all EU bilateral free trade agreements.
The list of 201 food names, including the well-known Greek Feta, French Roquefort, Italian Prosciutto di Parma, and Belgian Jambon d’Ardenne, is attached as an annex to the Commission’s recently published concept paper on Geographical Indications (GIs).
The Commission proposes to establish a system providing for “an appropriate level of protection” for both the EU and the US local names, including “administrative enforcement against misuse” and “specific arrangement in case of specific GI names.”
“What is at stake is not a question of principle, but the achievement of key substantive objectives that would guarantee an appropriate protection of EU (and US) Geographical Indications,” the Commission said, listing a number of deficiencies of the US trademark system.
“Better protection of EU and US GIs will benefit producers of quality products on both sides of the Atlantic, and not least small and medium sized enterprises,” it added. The Commission is also seeking to extend the list of bilaterally protected spirits and wines. The concept paper includes an annex with 22 spirits names other than those covered by the EU-US 1994 Agreement, for which the EU is seeking special protection in the US. It lists such names as Italian Grappa, Polish Cherry liqueur and Hungarian Palinka. As for wines, the EU wants to secure “the exclusive use for EU wine producers of the wine names listed in Annex II of the EU-US Wine Agreement” in the US. The 17 wine names listed in Annex II of the 2006 EU-US Wine Agreement, including Champagne, Moselle, Port, Retsina, Rhine, Sauterne, Sherry and Tokay, are currently used by US producers due to a grandfathering clause included in the deal, which allowed US wine already marketed under these names to continue to be sold.
“The EU considers that the 17 names covered by the provision of Article 6 of the Agreement and listed in Annex II of the Agreement are all well recognised wine names of EU origin for which the TTIP agreement must recognise exclusive protection on the U.S. territory,” the Commission said in its concept paper. Securing automatic recognition and a high-level of protection for a shortlist of GIs in the US is one of the key offensive interests of the EU.
As the latest leak shows, the EU makes its concessions in the TTIP tariff offer generally conditional inter alia upon the US extending protections for GIs to products other than wine and spirits.
“The negotiation on Geographical Indications must result in the extension on the U.S. territory of Article 23 TRIPS protection to other foodstuffs than wines and spirits on the basis of a shortlist of EU names protected as Geographical Indications in the EU which will be directly protected through the TTIP Agreement,” the EU says in its cover note to the revised tariff offer of 15 October 2015.
Article 23 of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) requires WTO members to provide legal means to protect against the use of GIs for wine and spirits not originating from the region indicated, even where the true origin of the good is indicated or accompanied by expressions such as “like” or “style”.
But the US considers the European GI system highly restrictive and discriminatory. The American agri-food lobby together with certain food names organisations is putting pressure on the Office of the US Trade Representative to reject any EU proposals for an automatic recognition of GIs that include generic terms, in the US.
Due to strong disagreements, the TTIP talks on GIs have stalled, with the US refusing to acknowledge the shortcomings of its system. Instead, US officials claim that European GIs enjoy an adequate level of protection in the US. They complain at the same time that US companies encounter numerous difficulties in obtaining satisfactory protection for their trade marks in the EU.
Background
The EU system of protected names, worth €54.3 billion (2013), covers a long list of agri-food products and alcohols (around 1,100 agricultural and foodstuff GIs and some 1,561 wine PDOs/PGIs and 325 spirit GIs), such as Feta cheese or Champagne. They enjoy strong protection on the EU market and in some third countries (eg some 160 GIs enjoy special protection in South Korea under the 2011 free trade agreement).
TTIP: EU seeking special protection for over 200 food, wine and spirits names
March 23, 2016 5:10 pm
The European Commission is seeking special protection under the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) agreement for over 200 agri-food names produced locally in the EU. If accepted by the US, it would be the highest number secured in all EU bilateral free trade agreements.
The list of 201 food names, including the well-known Greek Feta, French Roquefort, Italian Prosciutto di Parma, and Belgian Jambon d’Ardenne, is attached as an annex to the Commission’s recently published concept paper on Geographical Indications (GIs).
The Commission proposes to establish a system providing for “an appropriate level of protection” for both the EU and the US local names, including “administrative enforcement against misuse” and “specific arrangement in case of specific GI names.”
“What is at stake is not a question of principle, but the achievement of key substantive objectives that would guarantee an appropriate protection of EU (and US) Geographical Indications,” the Commission said, listing a number of deficiencies of the US trademark system.
“Better protection of EU and US GIs will benefit producers of quality products on both sides of the Atlantic, and not least small and medium sized enterprises,” it added. The Commission is also seeking to extend the list of bilaterally protected spirits and wines. The concept paper includes an annex with 22 spirits names other than those covered by the EU-US 1994 Agreement, for which the EU is seeking special protection in the US. It lists such names as Italian Grappa, Polish Cherry liqueur and Hungarian Palinka. As for wines, the EU wants to secure “the exclusive use for EU wine producers of the wine names listed in Annex II of the EU-US Wine Agreement” in the US. The 17 wine names listed in Annex II of the 2006 EU-US Wine Agreement, including Champagne, Moselle, Port, Retsina, Rhine, Sauterne, Sherry and Tokay, are currently used by US producers due to a grandfathering clause included in the deal, which allowed US wine already marketed under these names to continue to be sold.
“The EU considers that the 17 names covered by the provision of Article 6 of the Agreement and listed in Annex II of the Agreement are all well recognised wine names of EU origin for which the TTIP agreement must recognise exclusive protection on the U.S. territory,” the Commission said in its concept paper. Securing automatic recognition and a high-level of protection for a shortlist of GIs in the US is one of the key offensive interests of the EU.
As the latest leak shows, the EU makes its concessions in the TTIP tariff offer generally conditional inter alia upon the US extending protections for GIs to products other than wine and spirits.
“The negotiation on Geographical Indications must result in the extension on the U.S. territory of Article 23 TRIPS protection to other foodstuffs than wines and spirits on the basis of a shortlist of EU names protected as Geographical Indications in the EU which will be directly protected through the TTIP Agreement,” the EU says in its cover note to the revised tariff offer of 15 October 2015.
Article 23 of the World Trade Organization’s Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) requires WTO members to provide legal means to protect against the use of GIs for wine and spirits not originating from the region indicated, even where the true origin of the good is indicated or accompanied by expressions such as “like” or “style”.
But the US considers the European GI system highly restrictive and discriminatory. The American agri-food lobby together with certain food names organisations is putting pressure on the Office of the US Trade Representative to reject any EU proposals for an automatic recognition of GIs that include generic terms, in the US.
Due to strong disagreements, the TTIP talks on GIs have stalled, with the US refusing to acknowledge the shortcomings of its system. Instead, US officials claim that European GIs enjoy an adequate level of protection in the US. They complain at the same time that US companies encounter numerous difficulties in obtaining satisfactory protection for their trade marks in the EU.
Background
The EU system of protected names, worth €54.3 billion (2013), covers a long list of agri-food products and alcohols (around 1,100 agricultural and foodstuff GIs and some 1,561 wine PDOs/PGIs and 325 spirit GIs), such as Feta cheese or Champagne. They enjoy strong protection on the EU market and in some third countries (eg some 160 GIs enjoy special protection in South Korea under the 2011 free trade agreement).
free trade agreements and NCDs
Leaked letter from the US Senate to the USTR proves the US Governments desire for a full TTIP and deregulatory, standard lowering goals in calling for the removal restrictions of hormone beef to the EU and other 'trade restricting' measures http://bit.ly/1rlHp3s
Canadian - eu trade agreement (ceta)
April 27, the Wallonian government voted a resounding NO to the Canadian EU Trade Agreement otherwise known as CETA which is viewed by many as 'TTIP through the back door'. The vote does not necessarily mean the EU cannot ratify the agreement but it does mean that Belgium as a country will not be able to sign it. There is also a strong chance that other countries such as Romania may feel encouraged to follow Wallonia's example. The full text of their Resolution is available: STOP CETA RESOLUTION WALLONIAN PARLIAMENT
prior to the leaks, ceta was already in trouble
In 2015, the European Commission launched a Sustainability Impact Assessment of the TTIP (TSIA), three years AFTER the negotiations actually started. The draft report of the TSIA was recently published for feedback. While the report has quite an extensive discussion about the impacts of tariff reductions on health in the EU, it pays very little attention to the effects of regulatory harmonisation and investment protection.
THE HEALTH AND TRADE NETWORK Response TO THE SO-CALLED TTIP SUSTAINABILITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT
The Greenpeace TTIP Leaks
On May 02, Greenpeace Netherlands leaked 13 chapters of the TTIP texts including many consolidated texts showing great disagreements between the EU and the US. In the last 24 hours, the Chair of the European Parliament's Trade Committee, German MEP Bernd Lange has cast doubts on the future of the agreement, and the French government have become increasingly vocal against it.
HaT will be responding to the leaks after we have time to read the texts, a round up of rapid NGO responses can be found on the TTIP page.
On May 02, Greenpeace Netherlands leaked 13 chapters of the TTIP texts including many consolidated texts showing great disagreements between the EU and the US. In the last 24 hours, the Chair of the European Parliament's Trade Committee, German MEP Bernd Lange has cast doubts on the future of the agreement, and the French government have become increasingly vocal against it.
HaT will be responding to the leaks after we have time to read the texts, a round up of rapid NGO responses can be found on the TTIP page.
haT bulletin 7: the trouble with trade agreements
__"No trade agreements should include public or private healthcare services: decisions about healthcare and procurement are made by Member States and in the US, State level governments, they simply have no place in trade agreements."
April 23 to 29 is a big week for trade agreement negotiations which are taking place for the TTIP in New York and RCEP in Australia. Despite drops in public support for both, negotiators are ploughing blindly on, ignoring the will of the people whose lives will be affected by them.
As the 12th round of trade negotiations for the RCEP commence in Perth (Australia) from 22 April onwards, several civil society organisations in Asia have raised concerns around transparency and possible negative impacts on several issues ranging from access to medicines, tax policy, investor rights and farmers access to seeds. Before the rounds, several participating countries called on India to be more open with its services liberalisation and to boost investment or else to leave the negotiations but as the doors are so firmly closed, no further information on these rounds are currently available.
In the EU and the US, public support for the TTIP is falling. According to a YouGov poll, only 17 percent of Germans think the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a good thing, down from 55 percent two years ago. One in three Germans (33 percent) are against the agreement completely. Hardly encouraging news for the negotiators hiding out this week in the Hilton Hotel, downtown New York. Procurement and investment protection were sources of disagreements in the last rounds, and in these meetings the negotiators are aiming to move closer towards agreements in these areas.
Procurement especially is proving a giant sticking point. Including rules and regulations about how local government service providers award contracts, procurement is one of the most contentious issues in the TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic. There is no doubt that the EU has its eyes on the prize of lucrative State level contracts at all levels while claiming at the same time that the EU has the most open procurement markets. European companies can invest in the US, but they do not get the same treatment as US companies and there is nothing to stop local governments from choosing local companies if they prefer. The States are not happy with attempts to open up their procurement rules through trade agreements: they resisted in in the Transpacific Partnership and it is highly likely they will resist again in TTIP.
Likewise in the EU there has been a massive groundswell of grass roots resistance through the TTIP Free Zone Movement which saw its first meeting in Barcelona last week. About 40 mayors and councillors from several European countries for the “First pan European meeting of local authorities and new generation of free trade agreements”. In their Declaration, the Mayors stated:
“We recognise the importance of the trade of goods and services for citizen wellbeing, but we stress that competitiveness and economic growth should not be the only criteria used to determine free trade agreements such as TTIP, CETA and others (such as TISA).
We believe that international trade must be based on criteria that is not limited to mere free trade. We must defend trade which is fair, sustainable, and which upholds labour rights.”
There can be no doubt that the TTIP threatens to deny local authorities of their right to legislation and undertake procurement that protects local jobs, the environment and healthcare services. The negotiations on government procurement leave open a number of questions about the relationship between the TTIP and the transposition of the EU Procurement Directive. These arise not only in terms of scope of the negotiations, prioritisation in negotiations or competence, but also in terms of the extent to which governments could lose crucial policy space to tackle social, environmental and broader public policy aims as part of public procurement policies, including the flexibility still available under European Union government procurement requirements.
The best protection for healthcare services and procurement from commercialisation would be a blanket exclusion from the EU’s trade policies and the TTIP. The second best way would be to ensure that healthcare services and procurement are protected from investor state dispute settlement cases by deleting the investment chapter. Finally, if none of the above proves possible, both public and private healthcare services AND all procurement should be fully excluded not only from their own chapters but from investment protection as well.
April 23 to 29 is a big week for trade agreement negotiations which are taking place for the TTIP in New York and RCEP in Australia. Despite drops in public support for both, negotiators are ploughing blindly on, ignoring the will of the people whose lives will be affected by them.
As the 12th round of trade negotiations for the RCEP commence in Perth (Australia) from 22 April onwards, several civil society organisations in Asia have raised concerns around transparency and possible negative impacts on several issues ranging from access to medicines, tax policy, investor rights and farmers access to seeds. Before the rounds, several participating countries called on India to be more open with its services liberalisation and to boost investment or else to leave the negotiations but as the doors are so firmly closed, no further information on these rounds are currently available.
In the EU and the US, public support for the TTIP is falling. According to a YouGov poll, only 17 percent of Germans think the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership is a good thing, down from 55 percent two years ago. One in three Germans (33 percent) are against the agreement completely. Hardly encouraging news for the negotiators hiding out this week in the Hilton Hotel, downtown New York. Procurement and investment protection were sources of disagreements in the last rounds, and in these meetings the negotiators are aiming to move closer towards agreements in these areas.
Procurement especially is proving a giant sticking point. Including rules and regulations about how local government service providers award contracts, procurement is one of the most contentious issues in the TTIP on both sides of the Atlantic. There is no doubt that the EU has its eyes on the prize of lucrative State level contracts at all levels while claiming at the same time that the EU has the most open procurement markets. European companies can invest in the US, but they do not get the same treatment as US companies and there is nothing to stop local governments from choosing local companies if they prefer. The States are not happy with attempts to open up their procurement rules through trade agreements: they resisted in in the Transpacific Partnership and it is highly likely they will resist again in TTIP.
Likewise in the EU there has been a massive groundswell of grass roots resistance through the TTIP Free Zone Movement which saw its first meeting in Barcelona last week. About 40 mayors and councillors from several European countries for the “First pan European meeting of local authorities and new generation of free trade agreements”. In their Declaration, the Mayors stated:
“We recognise the importance of the trade of goods and services for citizen wellbeing, but we stress that competitiveness and economic growth should not be the only criteria used to determine free trade agreements such as TTIP, CETA and others (such as TISA).
We believe that international trade must be based on criteria that is not limited to mere free trade. We must defend trade which is fair, sustainable, and which upholds labour rights.”
There can be no doubt that the TTIP threatens to deny local authorities of their right to legislation and undertake procurement that protects local jobs, the environment and healthcare services. The negotiations on government procurement leave open a number of questions about the relationship between the TTIP and the transposition of the EU Procurement Directive. These arise not only in terms of scope of the negotiations, prioritisation in negotiations or competence, but also in terms of the extent to which governments could lose crucial policy space to tackle social, environmental and broader public policy aims as part of public procurement policies, including the flexibility still available under European Union government procurement requirements.
The best protection for healthcare services and procurement from commercialisation would be a blanket exclusion from the EU’s trade policies and the TTIP. The second best way would be to ensure that healthcare services and procurement are protected from investor state dispute settlement cases by deleting the investment chapter. Finally, if none of the above proves possible, both public and private healthcare services AND all procurement should be fully excluded not only from their own chapters but from investment protection as well.
TTIP and africa: are trade agreements and development compatible?
TTIP Round 12: what kind of end is in sight?
Anyone following the TTIP will know that the 12th round of negotiations were held last month in Brussels. Marked by protests from Greenpeace who delayed the negotiations by a few hours and the TTIPFlashmob who interrupted speeches at the cocktail event for negotiators afterwards, there was a general feeling of unease in the air accompanied by glimpses of optimism among TTIP opponents. The pressure is on. Both negotiating parties were keen to stress in their conclusions that the TTIP should be finished by the end of 2016 but that they would not concede to a TTIP-lite. Rumours on the inside however circled about the US dragging its feet in the negotiations and too many differences on several key issues to be able to ever reach an agreement. The so-called ICS proposal from the Commission was only tabled in this round along with changes to the Regulatory Cooperation chapter. Indeed the workload was so heavy that procurement offers – another vastly important area for the Commission at least – were not discussed until the week after the main negotiations ended. Procurement is a key concern for healthcare services and local governments. Without a carve-out of public procurement both from the procurement chapter and investment protection, the services carve-outs for the tiny proportion of public services they cover not in competition with private providers (according to the GATTS definition), will not be complete. These elements, among others, are key to providing watertight exclusions for health. Without them the TTIP, TiSA, CETA and any other trade agreements cannot be proven to protect population health or leave governments free to choose the healthcare services they wish to provide and are hence a long way from deserving support.
Inside the stakeholder rounds, there were the usual requests and demands from industry: the wine sector called for an end to discriminatory practices in the US that prevent EU exports going directly to market. This same piece of legislation protects public health by indirectly imposing pricing controls on US consumers, a proven method for deterring alcohol abuse. Chemical industries played up the economic benefits for their shareholders, and pharmaceutical companies put forward the same requests for increase harmonisation and standard setting. The repetition in some of the presentations perhaps echoed the wider frustration with the negotiations marred by differences on both sides that may be simply too wide to overcome. There were also more health friendly presentations, the Committee of Standing Doctors and the International Association of Mutual Benefit Societies (AIM) highlighted the need to ensure that carve outs of healthcare services and services of general interest are excluded from the services and investment protection chapters. The European Public Health Alliance proposed the idea of including health in the Sustainable Development Chapter, and Public Citizen presented the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue’s position on the new ICS chapter. A statement signed by 280 civil society organisations opposing investment protection in TTIP, CETA and all trade agreements was also widely distributed.
Anyone following the TTIP will know that the 12th round of negotiations were held last month in Brussels. Marked by protests from Greenpeace who delayed the negotiations by a few hours and the TTIPFlashmob who interrupted speeches at the cocktail event for negotiators afterwards, there was a general feeling of unease in the air accompanied by glimpses of optimism among TTIP opponents. The pressure is on. Both negotiating parties were keen to stress in their conclusions that the TTIP should be finished by the end of 2016 but that they would not concede to a TTIP-lite. Rumours on the inside however circled about the US dragging its feet in the negotiations and too many differences on several key issues to be able to ever reach an agreement. The so-called ICS proposal from the Commission was only tabled in this round along with changes to the Regulatory Cooperation chapter. Indeed the workload was so heavy that procurement offers – another vastly important area for the Commission at least – were not discussed until the week after the main negotiations ended. Procurement is a key concern for healthcare services and local governments. Without a carve-out of public procurement both from the procurement chapter and investment protection, the services carve-outs for the tiny proportion of public services they cover not in competition with private providers (according to the GATTS definition), will not be complete. These elements, among others, are key to providing watertight exclusions for health. Without them the TTIP, TiSA, CETA and any other trade agreements cannot be proven to protect population health or leave governments free to choose the healthcare services they wish to provide and are hence a long way from deserving support.
Inside the stakeholder rounds, there were the usual requests and demands from industry: the wine sector called for an end to discriminatory practices in the US that prevent EU exports going directly to market. This same piece of legislation protects public health by indirectly imposing pricing controls on US consumers, a proven method for deterring alcohol abuse. Chemical industries played up the economic benefits for their shareholders, and pharmaceutical companies put forward the same requests for increase harmonisation and standard setting. The repetition in some of the presentations perhaps echoed the wider frustration with the negotiations marred by differences on both sides that may be simply too wide to overcome. There were also more health friendly presentations, the Committee of Standing Doctors and the International Association of Mutual Benefit Societies (AIM) highlighted the need to ensure that carve outs of healthcare services and services of general interest are excluded from the services and investment protection chapters. The European Public Health Alliance proposed the idea of including health in the Sustainable Development Chapter, and Public Citizen presented the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue’s position on the new ICS chapter. A statement signed by 280 civil society organisations opposing investment protection in TTIP, CETA and all trade agreements was also widely distributed.
(Article 208 of the Lisbon Treaty states that the one of the primacy goals Union development cooperation policy is to establish the reduction and in the long term, eradicate poverty. In addition, Article 168 of the same Treaty states that 'A high level of human health protection shall be ensured in the definition and implementation of all Union policies and activities.' Clearly trade agreements negotiated by the European Union should at the very least not stand in the way of achieving these ambition, and at best make a concerted, legally binding effort to ensure that trade agreements do not put up barriers to the right to health and development. Given that many African countries have longstanding trade ties with the EU, many are starting to ask if the effects of the TTIP will not just be felt in the EU and the US but also among other trading partners. A recent event in Brussels highlighted the potential impacts of the TTIP on Africa in particular. Data was presented from the TTIP supporting Bertelsmann Foundation which controversially predicts that although (they estimate) ‘the world’ could be 3.27% better off after TTIP, a number of African countries: most notably in the west and southern areas of the continent, will experience 0.5 to 3% decreases in overall GDP income.
The same issues that concern citizens from workers, consumers and public health experts in the TTIP are as relevant for Africa as they are for the EU and US. Given the levels of poverty in many African countries and the fact that gaining a better place in global value chains is seen by many as key to development, these shortcomings are made all the more serious when they act as barriers to national efforts to lift nations out of poverty.
Firstly, in whatever form it takes, the TTIP and other trade agreements such as EU-Vietnam and CETA are institutionalising investment protection which privileges foreign investors in a nation state over local companies and penalises governments for attempting to pass legislation designed to protect our health. In recent years, the number of ISDS cases has been rising. Since 1998, Egypt has experienced 26 individual ISDS cases, 16 of which have been bought since 2011. They include Veolia vs Egypt: a case bought by a French company in response to Egypt’s attempt to raise the minimum wage. Future cases against fragile African economies could be devastating; draining precious government resources that would be better invested in healthcare and education. The Commission argues that the ‘right to regulate’ is included in updated investment protection chapters. However, as we can see in the Phillip Morris vs Uruguay case which contravenes the public health protections laid out in the treaty they are suing the government under, arbitration lawyers are not likely to pay attention to such language. They are far more likely to use the umbrella clause which enables challengers to bring in sections of other trade agreements to use where there is no right to regulate in order to sue national governments.
One of the selling key points of the TTIP used by the European Commission is that it will set ‘Gold Standards’ for the rest of the world to aspire to, thereby ensuring that the European standards are maintained. Aside from the inevitable downward harmonisation that will ensue from the regulatory cooperation chapter in the TTIP, the message that actually comes across is a desire to strengthen, yet again, American and European hegemony in global trade at the expense of other nations. For example, strengthening the IP regimes in the TTIP will make it more difficult for African countries to negotiate shorter patent protections within their own trade agreements with the EU or the US, delaying the time it takes for cheaper generic treatments to get onto local markets. And what are the implications for regulatory cooperation and the stated need in the TTIP to assess all proposed legislation for its impact on transatlantic trade? Is it really the intention of the Commission and the business community for developing nations - who will most likely need to create new legislation to ensure the success of the sustainable development goals - to instigate the same kind of trade impact assessments?
Clearly conflict of interests will arise between legislative proposals designed, for example, to ensure that non-communicable diseases do not increase and the private sector’s perception of a loss of future profits or intellectual property. A hypothetical example of an alcohol health warning label initiative in a developing country with high levels of alcohol abuse in order to lower alcohol related harm and meet the targets of SDG3 would open up opportunities for ISDS cases under whichever bilateral or regional trade agreement includes investment protection the country is a signatory to.
Time and again international corporations have taken out investment protection cases where health, the environment and even climate change have been at stake. It is highly unlikely that altruism will win out over feared expropriation of profits creating not only a regulatory chill but also harming population health and the economic future of the country involved.
For the sake of African development, and the achievement of the SDGs worldwide, investment protection should be removed from all trade agreements.
The TTIP does contain a Sustainable Development chapter where the environment and labour rights are supposed to be protected. According to the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, ‘the written mandates (in CETA) alone are not strong enough to guarantee any meaningful impact’, and the same is true for the TTIP. In these areas then, the EU, Canada and the US are in fact creating poor examples of standard setting as opposed to providing a Gold Standard of protection for health, human rights and the environment.
Finally, due to the TTIP, the future of African agricultural exports to the EU looks bleak. If the projected increased trade in agricultural products between the EU and the US after tariff elimination comes about, not only may demand for African products decrease but the centralisation of bargaining power will move more firmly into the hands of the Americans and the Europeans. In the words of Karin Ulmer from the Act Alliance, ‘the EU and the US already set the standards for the world: once they join together they will be too powerful for the rest of the world.’
The European Commission recently came under fire from the German Africa Commissioner for destroying Africa’s economic development through tariff and fee liberalisation in the European Partnership Agreements (EPAs). The development gains funded by millions of Euros worth of development aid spent by EU Member States are being cancelled out by unfair trading practices instigated by the EPAs. As a result of the predicted decreased demand for African produce after TTIP and the increasing liberalisation of trade via the removal of tariffs that the EU is promoting in the EPAs, African countries look set to loose valuable income from tariff barriers and export taxes.
The implications for the health in the African continent are clear: there will be more of a risk for losses of government funds from investment protection cases, it will take longer for cheaper generic medicines to come to market, there will be less income from tariffs and fees for investing in healthcare, and it will become more difficult for African farmers to enter global value chains leaving them with less income to spend on education and medical care. It the European Union really cares about Articles 208 and 168 of the Lisbon Treaty, we need to be seriously rethinking how trade agreements are developed and go back to the drawing board to develop trade systems that are developed not just by immediate stakeholders but also by those whose lives will be affected. Only then will the challenging demands of international development and the right to health be met.
(With thanks to the organisers of the Africa and TTIP meeting for a great event that inspired this Bulletin embellished with HaT's health perspectives afterwards:.
TTIP: Partenariat Transatlantique de Commerce et d’Investissement, quelles conséquences pour l’Afrique? Presenters:
Michel Cermak (CNCD-11.11.11)
Sergi Corbalán (Fair Trade Advocacy Office) et Karin Ulmer (Act Alliance EU) Le TTIP n’affecte pas seulement les populations de l’UE et des USA, mais il aurait également un impact sur des tierces parties. Les conséquences du TTIP pour l’Afrique.)
The same issues that concern citizens from workers, consumers and public health experts in the TTIP are as relevant for Africa as they are for the EU and US. Given the levels of poverty in many African countries and the fact that gaining a better place in global value chains is seen by many as key to development, these shortcomings are made all the more serious when they act as barriers to national efforts to lift nations out of poverty.
Firstly, in whatever form it takes, the TTIP and other trade agreements such as EU-Vietnam and CETA are institutionalising investment protection which privileges foreign investors in a nation state over local companies and penalises governments for attempting to pass legislation designed to protect our health. In recent years, the number of ISDS cases has been rising. Since 1998, Egypt has experienced 26 individual ISDS cases, 16 of which have been bought since 2011. They include Veolia vs Egypt: a case bought by a French company in response to Egypt’s attempt to raise the minimum wage. Future cases against fragile African economies could be devastating; draining precious government resources that would be better invested in healthcare and education. The Commission argues that the ‘right to regulate’ is included in updated investment protection chapters. However, as we can see in the Phillip Morris vs Uruguay case which contravenes the public health protections laid out in the treaty they are suing the government under, arbitration lawyers are not likely to pay attention to such language. They are far more likely to use the umbrella clause which enables challengers to bring in sections of other trade agreements to use where there is no right to regulate in order to sue national governments.
One of the selling key points of the TTIP used by the European Commission is that it will set ‘Gold Standards’ for the rest of the world to aspire to, thereby ensuring that the European standards are maintained. Aside from the inevitable downward harmonisation that will ensue from the regulatory cooperation chapter in the TTIP, the message that actually comes across is a desire to strengthen, yet again, American and European hegemony in global trade at the expense of other nations. For example, strengthening the IP regimes in the TTIP will make it more difficult for African countries to negotiate shorter patent protections within their own trade agreements with the EU or the US, delaying the time it takes for cheaper generic treatments to get onto local markets. And what are the implications for regulatory cooperation and the stated need in the TTIP to assess all proposed legislation for its impact on transatlantic trade? Is it really the intention of the Commission and the business community for developing nations - who will most likely need to create new legislation to ensure the success of the sustainable development goals - to instigate the same kind of trade impact assessments?
Clearly conflict of interests will arise between legislative proposals designed, for example, to ensure that non-communicable diseases do not increase and the private sector’s perception of a loss of future profits or intellectual property. A hypothetical example of an alcohol health warning label initiative in a developing country with high levels of alcohol abuse in order to lower alcohol related harm and meet the targets of SDG3 would open up opportunities for ISDS cases under whichever bilateral or regional trade agreement includes investment protection the country is a signatory to.
Time and again international corporations have taken out investment protection cases where health, the environment and even climate change have been at stake. It is highly unlikely that altruism will win out over feared expropriation of profits creating not only a regulatory chill but also harming population health and the economic future of the country involved.
For the sake of African development, and the achievement of the SDGs worldwide, investment protection should be removed from all trade agreements.
The TTIP does contain a Sustainable Development chapter where the environment and labour rights are supposed to be protected. According to the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, ‘the written mandates (in CETA) alone are not strong enough to guarantee any meaningful impact’, and the same is true for the TTIP. In these areas then, the EU, Canada and the US are in fact creating poor examples of standard setting as opposed to providing a Gold Standard of protection for health, human rights and the environment.
Finally, due to the TTIP, the future of African agricultural exports to the EU looks bleak. If the projected increased trade in agricultural products between the EU and the US after tariff elimination comes about, not only may demand for African products decrease but the centralisation of bargaining power will move more firmly into the hands of the Americans and the Europeans. In the words of Karin Ulmer from the Act Alliance, ‘the EU and the US already set the standards for the world: once they join together they will be too powerful for the rest of the world.’
The European Commission recently came under fire from the German Africa Commissioner for destroying Africa’s economic development through tariff and fee liberalisation in the European Partnership Agreements (EPAs). The development gains funded by millions of Euros worth of development aid spent by EU Member States are being cancelled out by unfair trading practices instigated by the EPAs. As a result of the predicted decreased demand for African produce after TTIP and the increasing liberalisation of trade via the removal of tariffs that the EU is promoting in the EPAs, African countries look set to loose valuable income from tariff barriers and export taxes.
The implications for the health in the African continent are clear: there will be more of a risk for losses of government funds from investment protection cases, it will take longer for cheaper generic medicines to come to market, there will be less income from tariffs and fees for investing in healthcare, and it will become more difficult for African farmers to enter global value chains leaving them with less income to spend on education and medical care. It the European Union really cares about Articles 208 and 168 of the Lisbon Treaty, we need to be seriously rethinking how trade agreements are developed and go back to the drawing board to develop trade systems that are developed not just by immediate stakeholders but also by those whose lives will be affected. Only then will the challenging demands of international development and the right to health be met.
(With thanks to the organisers of the Africa and TTIP meeting for a great event that inspired this Bulletin embellished with HaT's health perspectives afterwards:.
TTIP: Partenariat Transatlantique de Commerce et d’Investissement, quelles conséquences pour l’Afrique? Presenters:
Michel Cermak (CNCD-11.11.11)
Sergi Corbalán (Fair Trade Advocacy Office) et Karin Ulmer (Act Alliance EU) Le TTIP n’affecte pas seulement les populations de l’UE et des USA, mais il aurait également un impact sur des tierces parties. Les conséquences du TTIP pour l’Afrique.)