The TTIP Sustainability Impact Assessment rightly identifies tariff reductions for tobacco, alcohol and sugar as potentially contributing to the rise of chronic diseases in the EU. However it completely misses the point when it comes to the dangers of regulatory cooperation and investment protection for health policy making and healthcare services.
HaT Response to the TSIA (submitted June 06, 2016)
The production of the draft report of the TTIP Impact Assessment Study (TSIA) is welcomed with caution, even if the production of impact assessment should arguably have taken place back in 2012 or 2013 before negotiations started. It is encouraging to see health concerns addressed in the report, and the study goes some way in finally providing a more critical health analysis of the potential impacts of the TTIP. However, the status of the health section as a ‘case study’ weakens its impact.
Important concerns about the reductions of tariffs on sugar, alcohol and tobacco and the impact of lower prices on non-communicable diseases in the EU are described. However, it conveniently leaves out the threat from investment protection and regulatory harmonisation. These is of particular importance to public health, not least because of the number of ISDS cases around the world against tobacco control measures and legislation to regulate health harmful environmental practices. The so-called ICS itself remains a threat to health because the right to regulate is undermined by the need for governments to take the ‘measures necessary’ to achieve ‘legitimate’ objectives leaving the criteria to define what measures are necessary and what constitutes legitimate objectives open for interpretation, and ultimately, arbitration by for profit adjudicators.[1]
TTIP defenders praise the ICS because they say it will uphold the right to regulate in the interests of public health, iterating that health policies would not be considered as barriers to trade. We find this very difficult to believe as only last week the Irish government came under fire for wanting to introduce health warning labels on alcohol products; one of the very same unhealthy commodities that is discussed in the TSIA. Even without the TTIP in place, this public health policy measure was criticised by 11 Member States and questioned by the European Commission for being a ‘barrier to trade.’ Under these conditions, it is highly questionable that the exemptions for health policy space will apply to the TTIP if they are not already in place within the internal market regulations of the EU itself.[2]
The current analysis is based on the assumption that health services will not be affected by TTIP, which in the light of leaked negotiation documents and EU offers is not the case. It would be important that implications from regulatory cooperation and rules negotiations on regulation would be taken into account as part of TSIA. Health systems could also be affected by other chapters than chapter on services – such as procurement and investment protection - and even in services chapter it is not excluded as fully as audiovisual services.
[1] http://www.s2bnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/S2B_Statement_ISDS_ICS_engl2.pdf
[2] http://nessachilders.ie/2016/05/30/attacks-on-irish-alcohol-bill-show-dangers-of-slipshod-trade-deals/
HaT Response to the TSIA (submitted June 06, 2016)
The production of the draft report of the TTIP Impact Assessment Study (TSIA) is welcomed with caution, even if the production of impact assessment should arguably have taken place back in 2012 or 2013 before negotiations started. It is encouraging to see health concerns addressed in the report, and the study goes some way in finally providing a more critical health analysis of the potential impacts of the TTIP. However, the status of the health section as a ‘case study’ weakens its impact.
- Given the importance of public health and access to healthcare, we would like to see impacts of health given its own chapter in the final TSIA.
Important concerns about the reductions of tariffs on sugar, alcohol and tobacco and the impact of lower prices on non-communicable diseases in the EU are described. However, it conveniently leaves out the threat from investment protection and regulatory harmonisation. These is of particular importance to public health, not least because of the number of ISDS cases around the world against tobacco control measures and legislation to regulate health harmful environmental practices. The so-called ICS itself remains a threat to health because the right to regulate is undermined by the need for governments to take the ‘measures necessary’ to achieve ‘legitimate’ objectives leaving the criteria to define what measures are necessary and what constitutes legitimate objectives open for interpretation, and ultimately, arbitration by for profit adjudicators.[1]
TTIP defenders praise the ICS because they say it will uphold the right to regulate in the interests of public health, iterating that health policies would not be considered as barriers to trade. We find this very difficult to believe as only last week the Irish government came under fire for wanting to introduce health warning labels on alcohol products; one of the very same unhealthy commodities that is discussed in the TSIA. Even without the TTIP in place, this public health policy measure was criticised by 11 Member States and questioned by the European Commission for being a ‘barrier to trade.’ Under these conditions, it is highly questionable that the exemptions for health policy space will apply to the TTIP if they are not already in place within the internal market regulations of the EU itself.[2]
- The TSIA should be highlighting that tariff reductions, regulatory cooperation and investment protection are all dangerous for public health.
- The final TSIA should reflect any concerns about the impact on health and healthcare services as a threat to the right to health. Including trade rules, tariffs and market access in Table 4.13.
The current analysis is based on the assumption that health services will not be affected by TTIP, which in the light of leaked negotiation documents and EU offers is not the case. It would be important that implications from regulatory cooperation and rules negotiations on regulation would be taken into account as part of TSIA. Health systems could also be affected by other chapters than chapter on services – such as procurement and investment protection - and even in services chapter it is not excluded as fully as audiovisual services.
- It is important the TSIA addresses the extent to which TTIP could affect social security and pensions in the context of negotiations on financial services.
- The section on services should recognise the threat to health care services from other chapters and rules in the TTIP and examine these as well.
[1] http://www.s2bnetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/S2B_Statement_ISDS_ICS_engl2.pdf
[2] http://nessachilders.ie/2016/05/30/attacks-on-irish-alcohol-bill-show-dangers-of-slipshod-trade-deals/