Over 450 European and Canadian civil society groups urge legislators to reject CETA
November 28, 2016 Over 450 European and Canadian civil society groups urge legislators to reject CETA
PRESS RELEASE
Over 450 public interest groups from across Europe and Canada today urged legislators to vote against the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA). They joined forces to defend people and planet against the threats posed by the EU-Canada agreement, which still needs to be ratified by the European Parliament. Should EU parliamentarians give the trade deal the green light, ratification votes in EU member states would follow.
In an open letter sent to legislators today, the groups express serious concerns about CETA, the ratification of which could weaken protections for workers and the environment, and provide foreign investors with extreme tools to attack public interest regulations.
The open letter highlights that:
- CETA is no progressive trade deal but even more intrusive than the old free trade agenda designed by and for the world’s largest multinationals.
- the deal features many worrying provisions that sideline the needs of people and planet.
- there must be a paradigm shift towards a transparent and inclusive trade policy.
Trade campaigner Pia Eberhardt on behalf of signatory Corporate Europe Observatory said:
“Ratifying CETA would give corporations a carte blanche to push through their interests no matter what. CETA contains powerful tools for corporations to bully decision makers and sue for compensation if they introduce policies to protect people and the environment that may affect company profits. We would essentially see corporations hindering governments from doing the job for which they were elected.”
“In times of catastrophic climate change, rising social inequality and growing anger of those who no longer feel represented by politicians, more rights for corporations is the last thing we need.”
Larry Brown, President of the Canadian National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) who also signed the letter, added:
“We stand with European workers and members of civil society who are mobilizing against this corporate-driven trade deal, which will not benefit people. We will continue to fight the deal in Canada. We want our political leaders to move away from the failed model of past trade agreements and promote trade that benefits people and the environment.”
The General Secretary of the European Federation of Public Service Unions (EPSU), Jan Willem Goudriaan, another signatory of the letter, commented:
“Trade unions have provided ample input to the CETA negotiations in order to protect public services and strengthen labour rights. But despite last-minute concessions to clarify the possible interpretation of the agreement, our concerns are not addressed in the text. CETA has become a deal that is actually detrimental to the interests of people. We therefore urge Members of the European Parliament to stand up for citizens, public services and our democracy and vote against CETA.”
Notes to Editors:
- Read the full open letter to legislators (with links to translations into many languages, including French, German, and Spanish).
- There has been substantial controversy in the European Parliament over the tight timetable of the CETA dossier. Coordinators of the lead committee on international trade (INTA) are expected to decide on a new schedule today (28 November). It is likely to include an INTA vote in January, following which all Members of the European Parliament would have the opportunity to vote on CETA in plenary in February.
- An analysis of the CETA text and its many accompanying declarations shows that concerns over the deal’s negative impacts for workers, the environment and democracy are well-founded.
- Examples illustrating the broad coalition of voices criticising CETA include:
- a record 3.5 million people from all over Europe who have signed a petition against CETA and its twin agreement, the EU-US Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)
Guest Blog by Dr. Meri Koivusalo, Senior Researcher
CETA Interpretive Declaration Placates but Clarifies Nothing
The leaked draft joint declaration fails to respond to health policy concerns as they continue to be threatened by the investment protection provisions of the agreement. Although there are several further concerns in terms of public health, medicines and health services, the introduction of ISDS/ICS is the most problematic aspect of the agreement for health. The declaration does nothing to limit or restrict the scope for claims for compensation as part of ISDS/ICS. It is thus not a sufficient measure to respond to concerns presented by CETA’s doubters.
Declarations can have relevance for health. For example, the WTO Declaration on TRIPS and Public health clarified different interpretations with respect to TRIPS interpretations and compulsory licensing and emphasised priority of public health considerations. If interpretative declarations are to have relevance they need to have relevance to decisions made or imply conditionality to the context in which they have been applied. This has been clearly articulated by a legal opinion on the matter. The joint declaration does not fulfil these criteria. In contrast it raises some further concerns with respect to understanding it and the nature of the declaration.
In terms of legal relevance, the Declaration is at best irrelevant and at worst deceitful in seeking to give support to particular interpretations of the nature of CETA and how it relates to government abilities and policy space in future.
In this respect it seems to fit the claims of Greenpeace to have legal weight of a holiday brochure with a number of positive statements and references to CETA as a progressive modern agreement. The extend of its progressiveness however depends entirely on which perspective it is assessed from.
It is important to emphasise that as CETA is not yet signed there could have been an option to include stronger precautions in the agreement, restrict or remove investment protection more explicitly or improve clarity as part of further legal scrubbing, which has proved rather efficient in making substantive changes to the investment protection chapter.
If the issues are of real importance for both parties and there is a high degree of agreement on these issues, then these should be written into the agreement itself in a sufficiently clear manner so that interpretative statements are not required. Instead, public interest issues and democratic accountability have been given goodwill in the form of ‘calm down dear declaration’, while international investors and corporations have legal rights to claim for compensation.
The Declaration may undermine the basis on which CETA implications are discussed
The lack of legal weight with respect to the text of the treaty, but could undermine the ratification process as European Union Member States and Canada will agree to the given interpretations of the agreement, which can affect Member State ratification and decision-process within the European Union.
The declaration could thus also be seen as means to push all Member States to a more orderly process of ratification of the CETA agreement. For example, one question is if the declaration could limit possibilities of Member States to raise Lisbon Treaty Article 207(4). CETA brings in ISDS/ICS, which can be seen as a threat to the sustainability of organisation and financing of national health and social services. It could allow any European Member State and government to raise Lisbon Treaty Article 207(4), which reads as follows:
“For the negotiation and conclusion of the agreements referred to in paragraph 3, the Council shall act by a qualified majority.
For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the fields of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, the Council shall act unanimously where such agreements include provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules.
The Council shall also act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements:
(a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these agreements risk prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity;
(b) in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.”
However, the wording of the Declaration explicitly states that:
“Member States and Canada will therefore continue to have the ability to achieve the legitimate public policy objectives that their democratic institutions set, such as public health, social services, public education, safety, environment, public morals, and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity”.
The core concern is that if Member States hastily sign the declaration, which sounds good, they may also sign out from the scope of using Lisbon Treaty 207(4) as they have just declared that CETA does not affect their ability to achieve legitimate public policy objectives. There is of course no proof that this would be the case either way, but Member States would be tied to the stances of declaration as they had already agreed, that there is not going to be any problem.
The statement makes wishful claims and seeks to imply equality where there is none
The second problem arises from the promotional nature of the declaration and some of the claims made, which are difficult to substantiate on the basis of the agreement as they represent – at best- wishful thinking and at worst more problematic claims made to appeal to particular audiences. For example reference to CETA as a “modern and progressive” trade agreement falls short when judged from health and public policy perspective.
The declaration also confuses the contents of the agreement in a way which is politically problematic as clearly powers of labour, environmental and sustainable development differ from those with respect to investment. Yet this is not evident in the Declaration, which makes again very strong claims for maximising benefits for labour and sustainable development, when this is evidently not the case as negotiations had scope to make these sections stronger, but did not do so. Why should we believe that environment and labour would be important after signing the agreement, when this was has not been the case during negotiations.
Right to regulate, regulatory cooperation and public services
The issue of CETA is not and has not been the right to regulate as such or ability of Member States and Canada to adopt and apply their own laws, but in essence how this is done and on what basis this is done. The point is not whether governments will be able to regulate themselves, but that their own laws and their application need to be compliant with the agreement.
Regulatory cooperation under CETA is voluntary, but from a public health perspective it is not clear how regulatory cooperation under a trade platform would enhance better regulatory quality in terms of public health, health protection or health promotion policies.
It is important to note the wording in public services as in CETA some essential public services were explicitly excluded, but not all public services. A model clause to come closer to this could have been added to the agreement, but this was not done. The last paragraph on public services, for example, may not hold for those public services which have not been explicitly excluded as part of national schedules from investment. Furthermore, what is not written out is that CETA strengthens the case of private providers and rights of commercial providers to claim for compensation, should the government wish to return to public provision from outsourced public services, including health, social and education services, if this frustrates the legitimate expectations of investors.
Investment protection
The investment and investment protection chapter in CETA is better than what EU proposed for TTIP as it does exclude health and social services from liberalisation of investment and does not feature the umbrella clause or feature a “necessity” test for provisions on the right to regulate. These have particular relevance to social and health services. However, it still allows claims for compensation. The proposal on ICS is an improvement with regard to most of the problematic aspects of arbitration biases, but the crucial issue with respect to health and social policy relates to the scope of undermining public policy decisions with a threat of very high compensation claims.
The emphasis on “modern rules” which preserve right to regulate” is misleading as the right to regulate has not been at the core of investment protection, but rather the obligation to compensate. The key to the balance of power between policy-makers and investors is based on compensation claims and threats of compensation claims rather than direct implications to governments’ more general right to regulate as such.
The declaration also makes unsubstantiated claims as if these were a spell, which could change the text of the agreement. We have absolutely no guarantees that CETA could not result in foreign investors being treated more favourably than domestic investors in a situation, where only foreign investors have access to investment protection.
The interpretative Declaration may seek to provide clarification, but the CETA fair and equitable treatment as well as nodding towards legitimate expectations still provides scope for claims against public health measures. The problem is that merely (and repeatedly) stating that something is clearly defined does not make it clearly defined in the actual text of the agreement. Fair and equitable treatment provisions have been raised in public health-related issues.
Finally, if the European Commission and Canada would like to be “progressive” in the area they could seek a Multilateral Investment Court through multilateral channels of negotiation rather than on the basis of a bilateral agreement, which is then imposed on others. As part of these progressive efforts they should also take on board concerns from United Nations agencies and in particular, those of special rapporteur on human rights.
Trade and sustainable development, labour and environmental protection, water and stakeholder consultation
The draft Declaration does not realise any of the promises regarding the strengthening labour and environmental protection chapters. While there were actual considerations that the labour chapter would be strengthened, this does not seem to be the case in the light of the draft statement, which promises merely future potential for early review. The provisions on sustainable development, environmental protection, labour and water need to be read in alignment with the background that Canada has not always been that progressive in all these areas. While it is positive that Canada is to ratify ILO conventions, common aims reaching further may be more complicated than is implied. Canada has taken EU to WTO on the basis of asbestos regulation directly affecting occupational health and safety regulations. Canada has also substantial mining interests in Europe and globally. Currently a Canadian company is already using investment protection clause against Romania.
Government procurement
The declaration merely states that governments can apply environmental, social and labour-related criteria in government procurement as long as they do not discriminate or constitute unnecessary obstacles to international trade. It is thus not an explicit priority. Thus only such labour, environmental and social criteria, which do not restrict international trade or discriminate against foreign companies, may be applied and these can only be applied in ways which do not restrict international trade. This, some might say, would explicitly restrict how governments can achieve their legitimate policy aims. It describes the whole problem of the declaration as it seeks to focus on fudging the contents in a form that would make the agreement more palatable to governments. It also fails to fully secure the request by the Canadian Trade Minister and German Vice Chancellor that CETA provisions should “respect the parties rights to include social and labour criteria in the procurement procedures” . The draft Declaration merely clarifies that this would be possible only if it would not constitute an unnecessary obstacle to international trade.
No need to clarify ?
The declaration follows a prior statement of Canadian Trade Minister and German Vice Chancellor and thus represents issues brought up by them. While other aspects seem to be addressed better or worse in the agreement, there is no reference to precautionary principle or clarification made. While this is known to be a disputed issue between United States and European Union, WTO disputes on hormones and beef also featured Canada as a complainant. The lack of joint interpretative element on precautionary is thus likely to imply that it is not part of the shared values - or interpretation.
No, we will not Calm Down, Dear
Taking all these factors into account, it is clear that this Declaration is intended to reassure Member States not toeing the EU’s party line. Its “calm down dear” message is patronising and offensive to those who have troubling concern’s over CETA’s threat to health and healthcare systems in both the EU and Canada and should not be used as a basis for accepting the agreement.
CETA Interpretive Declaration Placates but Clarifies Nothing
The leaked draft joint declaration fails to respond to health policy concerns as they continue to be threatened by the investment protection provisions of the agreement. Although there are several further concerns in terms of public health, medicines and health services, the introduction of ISDS/ICS is the most problematic aspect of the agreement for health. The declaration does nothing to limit or restrict the scope for claims for compensation as part of ISDS/ICS. It is thus not a sufficient measure to respond to concerns presented by CETA’s doubters.
Declarations can have relevance for health. For example, the WTO Declaration on TRIPS and Public health clarified different interpretations with respect to TRIPS interpretations and compulsory licensing and emphasised priority of public health considerations. If interpretative declarations are to have relevance they need to have relevance to decisions made or imply conditionality to the context in which they have been applied. This has been clearly articulated by a legal opinion on the matter. The joint declaration does not fulfil these criteria. In contrast it raises some further concerns with respect to understanding it and the nature of the declaration.
In terms of legal relevance, the Declaration is at best irrelevant and at worst deceitful in seeking to give support to particular interpretations of the nature of CETA and how it relates to government abilities and policy space in future.
In this respect it seems to fit the claims of Greenpeace to have legal weight of a holiday brochure with a number of positive statements and references to CETA as a progressive modern agreement. The extend of its progressiveness however depends entirely on which perspective it is assessed from.
It is important to emphasise that as CETA is not yet signed there could have been an option to include stronger precautions in the agreement, restrict or remove investment protection more explicitly or improve clarity as part of further legal scrubbing, which has proved rather efficient in making substantive changes to the investment protection chapter.
If the issues are of real importance for both parties and there is a high degree of agreement on these issues, then these should be written into the agreement itself in a sufficiently clear manner so that interpretative statements are not required. Instead, public interest issues and democratic accountability have been given goodwill in the form of ‘calm down dear declaration’, while international investors and corporations have legal rights to claim for compensation.
The Declaration may undermine the basis on which CETA implications are discussed
The lack of legal weight with respect to the text of the treaty, but could undermine the ratification process as European Union Member States and Canada will agree to the given interpretations of the agreement, which can affect Member State ratification and decision-process within the European Union.
The declaration could thus also be seen as means to push all Member States to a more orderly process of ratification of the CETA agreement. For example, one question is if the declaration could limit possibilities of Member States to raise Lisbon Treaty Article 207(4). CETA brings in ISDS/ICS, which can be seen as a threat to the sustainability of organisation and financing of national health and social services. It could allow any European Member State and government to raise Lisbon Treaty Article 207(4), which reads as follows:
“For the negotiation and conclusion of the agreements referred to in paragraph 3, the Council shall act by a qualified majority.
For the negotiation and conclusion of agreements in the fields of trade in services and the commercial aspects of intellectual property, as well as foreign direct investment, the Council shall act unanimously where such agreements include provisions for which unanimity is required for the adoption of internal rules.
The Council shall also act unanimously for the negotiation and conclusion of agreements:
(a) in the field of trade in cultural and audiovisual services, where these agreements risk prejudicing the Union's cultural and linguistic diversity;
(b) in the field of trade in social, education and health services, where these agreements risk seriously disturbing the national organisation of such services and prejudicing the responsibility of Member States to deliver them.”
However, the wording of the Declaration explicitly states that:
“Member States and Canada will therefore continue to have the ability to achieve the legitimate public policy objectives that their democratic institutions set, such as public health, social services, public education, safety, environment, public morals, and the promotion and protection of cultural diversity”.
The core concern is that if Member States hastily sign the declaration, which sounds good, they may also sign out from the scope of using Lisbon Treaty 207(4) as they have just declared that CETA does not affect their ability to achieve legitimate public policy objectives. There is of course no proof that this would be the case either way, but Member States would be tied to the stances of declaration as they had already agreed, that there is not going to be any problem.
The statement makes wishful claims and seeks to imply equality where there is none
The second problem arises from the promotional nature of the declaration and some of the claims made, which are difficult to substantiate on the basis of the agreement as they represent – at best- wishful thinking and at worst more problematic claims made to appeal to particular audiences. For example reference to CETA as a “modern and progressive” trade agreement falls short when judged from health and public policy perspective.
The declaration also confuses the contents of the agreement in a way which is politically problematic as clearly powers of labour, environmental and sustainable development differ from those with respect to investment. Yet this is not evident in the Declaration, which makes again very strong claims for maximising benefits for labour and sustainable development, when this is evidently not the case as negotiations had scope to make these sections stronger, but did not do so. Why should we believe that environment and labour would be important after signing the agreement, when this was has not been the case during negotiations.
Right to regulate, regulatory cooperation and public services
The issue of CETA is not and has not been the right to regulate as such or ability of Member States and Canada to adopt and apply their own laws, but in essence how this is done and on what basis this is done. The point is not whether governments will be able to regulate themselves, but that their own laws and their application need to be compliant with the agreement.
Regulatory cooperation under CETA is voluntary, but from a public health perspective it is not clear how regulatory cooperation under a trade platform would enhance better regulatory quality in terms of public health, health protection or health promotion policies.
It is important to note the wording in public services as in CETA some essential public services were explicitly excluded, but not all public services. A model clause to come closer to this could have been added to the agreement, but this was not done. The last paragraph on public services, for example, may not hold for those public services which have not been explicitly excluded as part of national schedules from investment. Furthermore, what is not written out is that CETA strengthens the case of private providers and rights of commercial providers to claim for compensation, should the government wish to return to public provision from outsourced public services, including health, social and education services, if this frustrates the legitimate expectations of investors.
Investment protection
The investment and investment protection chapter in CETA is better than what EU proposed for TTIP as it does exclude health and social services from liberalisation of investment and does not feature the umbrella clause or feature a “necessity” test for provisions on the right to regulate. These have particular relevance to social and health services. However, it still allows claims for compensation. The proposal on ICS is an improvement with regard to most of the problematic aspects of arbitration biases, but the crucial issue with respect to health and social policy relates to the scope of undermining public policy decisions with a threat of very high compensation claims.
The emphasis on “modern rules” which preserve right to regulate” is misleading as the right to regulate has not been at the core of investment protection, but rather the obligation to compensate. The key to the balance of power between policy-makers and investors is based on compensation claims and threats of compensation claims rather than direct implications to governments’ more general right to regulate as such.
The declaration also makes unsubstantiated claims as if these were a spell, which could change the text of the agreement. We have absolutely no guarantees that CETA could not result in foreign investors being treated more favourably than domestic investors in a situation, where only foreign investors have access to investment protection.
The interpretative Declaration may seek to provide clarification, but the CETA fair and equitable treatment as well as nodding towards legitimate expectations still provides scope for claims against public health measures. The problem is that merely (and repeatedly) stating that something is clearly defined does not make it clearly defined in the actual text of the agreement. Fair and equitable treatment provisions have been raised in public health-related issues.
Finally, if the European Commission and Canada would like to be “progressive” in the area they could seek a Multilateral Investment Court through multilateral channels of negotiation rather than on the basis of a bilateral agreement, which is then imposed on others. As part of these progressive efforts they should also take on board concerns from United Nations agencies and in particular, those of special rapporteur on human rights.
Trade and sustainable development, labour and environmental protection, water and stakeholder consultation
The draft Declaration does not realise any of the promises regarding the strengthening labour and environmental protection chapters. While there were actual considerations that the labour chapter would be strengthened, this does not seem to be the case in the light of the draft statement, which promises merely future potential for early review. The provisions on sustainable development, environmental protection, labour and water need to be read in alignment with the background that Canada has not always been that progressive in all these areas. While it is positive that Canada is to ratify ILO conventions, common aims reaching further may be more complicated than is implied. Canada has taken EU to WTO on the basis of asbestos regulation directly affecting occupational health and safety regulations. Canada has also substantial mining interests in Europe and globally. Currently a Canadian company is already using investment protection clause against Romania.
Government procurement
The declaration merely states that governments can apply environmental, social and labour-related criteria in government procurement as long as they do not discriminate or constitute unnecessary obstacles to international trade. It is thus not an explicit priority. Thus only such labour, environmental and social criteria, which do not restrict international trade or discriminate against foreign companies, may be applied and these can only be applied in ways which do not restrict international trade. This, some might say, would explicitly restrict how governments can achieve their legitimate policy aims. It describes the whole problem of the declaration as it seeks to focus on fudging the contents in a form that would make the agreement more palatable to governments. It also fails to fully secure the request by the Canadian Trade Minister and German Vice Chancellor that CETA provisions should “respect the parties rights to include social and labour criteria in the procurement procedures” . The draft Declaration merely clarifies that this would be possible only if it would not constitute an unnecessary obstacle to international trade.
No need to clarify ?
The declaration follows a prior statement of Canadian Trade Minister and German Vice Chancellor and thus represents issues brought up by them. While other aspects seem to be addressed better or worse in the agreement, there is no reference to precautionary principle or clarification made. While this is known to be a disputed issue between United States and European Union, WTO disputes on hormones and beef also featured Canada as a complainant. The lack of joint interpretative element on precautionary is thus likely to imply that it is not part of the shared values - or interpretation.
No, we will not Calm Down, Dear
Taking all these factors into account, it is clear that this Declaration is intended to reassure Member States not toeing the EU’s party line. Its “calm down dear” message is patronising and offensive to those who have troubling concern’s over CETA’s threat to health and healthcare systems in both the EU and Canada and should not be used as a basis for accepting the agreement.
Health and Trade Network’s Statement on CETA for Trade Ministers 22 September 2016
Don’t be fooled by “Europe’s most progressive trade agreement”, the Canada-EU Trade Agreement CETA is a wolf in sheep’s clothing
PRIn his State of the Union Speech on September 14th 2016, the President of the European Commission, Jean-Claude Juncker called the Canada-EU trade agreement the most progressive trade agreement the EU has ever negotiated. Despite the fact it was negotiated under Canada’s more conservative former government, and for the most part before the current trade Commissioner took up her post, both the Commission and the Canadian governments are attempting to sell CETA as a modern, more transparent and less threatening trade agreement. In truth however, the agreement that has sometimes been called TTIP’s (little) ‘brother’[i] the EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) that is coming up for ratification by the European Parliament is problematic for public health. According to Dr Gabriel Siles-Brügge, Associate Professor in Politics and International Studies, University of Warwick (UK) and President of HaT 'The main problem with CETA is that it features the same provisions on investor protection and investment arbitration as the EU wants to incorporate into TTIP. There is a real risk that these could inhibit public interest decision-making in the area of health.'
Institutionalisation of ISDS/ICS
While Investor-to-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) – the ability of foreign companies to sue governments for public policy measures that infringe on their rights as foreign investors in shadowy arbitration tribunals that exist independently of domestic courts - has got a lot of attention due to its proposed inclusion in TTIP, CETA already contains such provisions. Although the Commission has recently undertaken a reform of ISDS that has found its way into the CETA text - and (misleadingly) renamed it the Investment Court System (ICS) – much of the problems of the old system remain in the new.[ii] These include the ability of arbitrators to interpret investor rights like ‘fair and equitable treatment’ and ‘indirect expropriation’ widely. In addition, the intrinsic bias of a system where arbitrators rely on their income on repeat custom from foreign companies (who are the only ones who can initiate suits) brings the impartiality of the so-called ‘court’ into question.
ISDS in CETA (even when rebranded as ICS) will potentially constrain European governments when it comes to introducing public policy measures that threaten corporate bottom lines, having a so-called ‘chilling effect.’ Both the TTIP and the CETA go way beyond traditional tariff reductions of ‘old style’ trade agreements; one of the key reasons why they are so dangerous.
ISDS/ICS in CETA is not less problematic than what is being proposed in TTIP. Canada has previously taken European Union to (state-to-state dispute settlement in the WTO for European asbestos legislation and Canadian mining companies have been used actively for scope for ISDS for compensation. Furthermore, when ISDS/ICS has been institutionalised in CETA, it would be available for US industries with Canadian bases as well.
CETA Pits Corporate Interests Against Public Health Legislation
Taxes on soft drinks and fatty foods are an evidence-based way to slow down the impending epidemic of chronic diseases in Europe caused by increasing obesity across the region. However, with increased powers for investor-state dispute settlement cases arising in CETA (and of course, the TTIP), proposals such as The UK’s ‘soft drinks industry levy” or sugar tax may be under threat if soda companies sue for indirect expropriation.
CETA will eliminate tariffs on soft drinks entirely[iii] which runs in direct contradiction to the price increasing aims of taxes such as the sugar tax. The EU currently applies tariffs of 9.6% on soft drink imports from Canada and the United States[iv] Even the Interim Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (TSIA) conducted on behalf of the European Commission for the TTIP found that consumption of such unhealthy products could increase[v] if tariffs are eliminated. “Lobbyists from Big Tobacco, Big Alcohol and Big Food want to ensure that the CETA and TTIP put a freeze on policies designed to prevent obesity and chronic disease for fear of profit loss” states Emma Woodford, Founding Director of the Health and Trade Network.
CETA Threatens the Provision of Public Healthcare
CETA will likely affect the way that healthcare services are managed in both Canada and the EU. The public healthcare systems in both Canada and the EU can be excluded from the CETA services commitments. However the first use of negative listing in an FTA by the EU means that any future new healthcare services will not be excluded from the rules of the trade agreement. Furthermore, the investment protection chapter in CETA extends to all sectors, including the health sector. While governments have the right to regulate, this does not preclude the threat of compensation claims. In addition, some EU countries such as the UK have not bothered to exclude healthcare from the CETA entirely.
CETA May Mean Higher Medicine Prices in Canada
The CETA Agreement includes obligations with respect to pharmaceuticals and may lead to increases in pharmaceutical prices in Canada[vi]. From a public health and health policy perspective, it would have been wise not to seek further data exclusivity for pharmaceutical trials in Canada, but rather to limit this in both the EU and Canada. However, that is not the direction to which “free trade” negotiations on IPR take place, with negotiators preferring to submit to pressure from Big Pharma to strengthen intellectual property provisions and increase, profits rather than make more medicines available at lower prices.
Finally, HaT Board Member Meri Koivusalo ends by saying that “even though CETA may not require changes in European policies, it will make it more difficult to change European policies” making CETA just as much of a threat to democracy as it’s “big brother” TTIP.
PRINTABLE VERSION OF THIS STATEMENT
[i] (http://www.globaljustice.org.uk/sites/default/files/files/resources/ceta-ttip-little-brother-global-justice-now.pdf),
[ii] (http://corporateeurope.org/sites/default/files/attachments/the_zombie_isds_0.pdf).
[iii] (http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2014/september/tradoc_152806.pdf).
[iv] http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/dds2/taric/measures.jsp?Lang=en&SimDate=20160513&Taric=2202100000&LangDescr=en
[v] http://www.trade-sia.com/ttip/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2014/02/TSIA-TTIP-draft-Interim-Technical-Report.pdf, pp. 122-3)
[vi] http://globalizationandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1744-8603-10-30