1. TTIP - an attack on Protection of the Environment and Human Well-being
Presentation to IMPACT Divisional Conference
By Michael Ewing
Coordinator of the Environmental Pillar
22nd May 2015

2. The Environmental Pillar Perspective
Sustainability
Core issues
Climate Change
Toxic Agri-Food
Animal Welfare
Chemicals
The New EU Commission
13/11/2018

3. “The continuing success of Irish society depends fundamentally on the preservation of the overall productivity, health and long term sustainability of the eco-systems and environmental services that underpin and supply many of the most basic components of human welfare - such as healthy soils, flourishing biodiversity, clean water and clean air.
13/11/2018

4. Sustainability
The Human race developed within and is entirely reliant on the natural environment for its well-being
Human social structures initially evolved within the limitations of the natural environment and they must start to do so again in order to flourish.
Economic systems were developed within the context of those social structures.
There is a huge disconnect between the capacity of the natural ecosystems to withstand abuse, and the economic systems that are driving their destruction.
26/03/2014
Environmental Pillar

5. 26/03/2014
Environmental Pillar

6. Core Issues with TTIP
ISDS Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanism How can the democratic process work when governments fear sanctions from already rich and influential companies? 150,000 citizens 97% anti ISDS Transparency Some small concessions on this Process Fast-track ratification Democratic parliamentary bodies only get to say yes or no to TTIP agreement - in EU from non-elected commission - US Trade Promotion Authority Bill Regulatory Coherence Legislative Chill
13/11/2018

7. ISDS = Investor State Dispute Settlement
Vattenfall vs Germany in which the Swedish company claimed €1.4 billion from Germany because Hamburg wished to maintain its environmental standards
Vattenfall is suing Germany again under ISDS for €3.4 billion because Germany is phasing out its nuclear reactors
Lone Pine vs Canada, the US company is suing Canada because of Québec's moratorium on fracking
Chevron versus Ecuador where Chevron used ISDS to overturn a court ruling requiring them to pay $18 billion in fines

8. ISDS
Oceanagold vs El Salvador, the mining company is taking the democratic government of El Salvador to court because of the country's attempts to ensure clean drinking water!
Ethyl vs Canada: Chemical manufacturer Ethyl sued Canada using ISDS over the introduction of a ban on a toxic chemical, MMT. The settlement of the case saw Canada reverse the ban and agree on a US$13 million payment. Incidentally, the same chemical was banned in the US.
13/11/2018

9. ISDS
The Philip Morris tobacco company is currently suing the Australian government over its tobacco plain packaging legislation, using an obscure 1993 Hong Kong- Australia investment treaty. Philip Morris is actually a US-based company, but could not sue under the US-Australia Free Trade Agreement, because public opposition kept this clause out of the agreement. Philip Morris rearranged its assets to become a Hong Kong investor in order to use an obscure treaty.
This shows how giant global companies can abuse such clauses in trade agreements
13/11/2018

10. Legislative Chill
Globally, there were 514 known investor-state disputes at the end of 2012
58 claims were launched in 2012 alone, the highest number ever in one year
More than one in three cases at the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes related to oil, mining or gas in 2013.
More than half of foreign direct investment in the EU comes from the US; and over half the foreign direct investment in the US comes from the EU.
Legal costs in investor-state disputes average over US$8 million, and exceed 30 million US$ in some cases. They are not always awarded to the winning party!
13/11/2018

11. SPM 3.2 Climate change risks reduced by mitigation and adaptation
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): (synthesis report for policy makers)
“Without additional efforts to reduce GHG emissions beyond those in place today, global emissions growth is expected to persist, driven by growth in global population and economy”
SPM 3.2 Climate change risks reduced by mitigation and adaptation
Without additional mitigation efforts beyond those in place today, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally (high confidence)
13/11/2018

12. SPM 4.1 Common enabling factors and constraints for adaptation and mitigation responses
Adaptation and mitigation responses are underpinned by common enabling factors.
These include effective institutions and governance, innovation and investments in environmentally sound technologies and infrastructure, sustainable livelihoods and behavioural and lifestyle choices. {4.1}
Q. Why is the EU negotiating on a trade deal with the US in the face of its abysmal failure on climate action?
13/11/2018

13. Climate implications within TTIP
The potential chill effect from the proposed Regulatory Co-operation Councils and ISDS
The stated objective of ‘eliminating or reducing technical barriers to trade’ through a process by which ‘equivalence’ or ‘mutual recognition’ of existing standards would be determined, or from an obligation to change existing standards to new internationally agreed ones as part of TTIP.
Examples of ‘technical barriers’ that have been listed by either negotiators or the industry groups pushing for this deal include - energy efficiency labels, fuel efficiency standards for cars, green or sustainable public procurement policies, regulation of unconventional fossil fuel extraction including shale gas and tar sands, sustainability standards for bio-energy and the banning of f-gases in appliances such as refrigerators and freezers.
13/11/2018

14. Toxic food and farm animal welfare
Public discourse: chlorine chicken and hormone beef, ractopamine pork - food safety
See what happens before the animal ends up as meat – animal welfare issue
Farm to fork visibility approach in the EU
TTIP will privilege US and EU intensive production methods at the expense of more sustainable agricultural practices
13/11/2018

15. Chemicals 1 Cultural Difference Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
USEPA must prove a substance is toxic
US is not a party to the major international treaties that are relevant for chemicals; such as the Stockholm Convention on persistent organic pollutants, the Rotterdam Convention on prior informed consent and the Aarhus Convention on access to information, public participation in decision-making and access to justice in environmental matters.
13/11/2018

16. Chemicals 2 Cultural Difference
REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
EU – Precautionary Principle
Chemical company must prove that the chemical is safe
EU pesticide and biocide Regulations, are designed to prohibit the use of substances which are carcinogenic, mutagenic and toxic for reproduction, or which have endocrine disrupting properties
nanomaterials and endocrine disruptors
13/11/2018

17. The New EU Commission Access to Justice under fire:
The right to challenge decisions pertaining to the environment based on human rights - Aarhus Convention
Natura Directives Under Fire
Habitats Directive
Birds Directive
Circular Economy Under Fire
Sustainable Economy
Waste Package Under Fire
13/11/2018

18. Lets Unite to Fight TTIP Thank You Go raibh maith agaibh www
Lets Unite to Fight TTIP Thank You Go raibh maith agaibh
13/11/2018