'Greater Public Scrutiny' Needed of Secret US-EU Trade Negotiations, MPs Warn

R2uAVsWy_400x400
on

The debate over the controversial Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) continues to suffer from a lack of transparency, warns a report by the UK Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS)ย Committee.

The secretive nature of the negotiations between the European Union and the United States on this major free trade deal has resulted in an โ€œoversimplification and misrepresentation of arguments on both sidesโ€ the Committeeย concludes.

Adrian Bailey, Chair of the BIS Committee said: โ€œMore detail needs to be made available to allow greater public scrutiny of this extensive tradeย agreement.โ€

The report argues that โ€œEveryone involved in the debate on TTIPโ€”campaigners, lobbyists, the UK Government and the European Commissionโ€”must ensure that an evidence-based approach is at the heart of any TTIPย debate.โ€

โ€œUnfortunately, in the absence of that detail or undertakings that negotiating texts will be made public, the debate on the trade agreement has becomeย polarised.โ€

Environmentalย Risks

The high degree of secrecy means it is impossible to monitor or evaluate what issues are being taken into account the report explains. This echoes concerns previously raised by MPs about whether or not environmental risks are being taken intoย consideration.

In particular, TTIPโ€™s investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism would allow foreign companies and private investors to sue governments for the loss of future profits caused by decisions made in nationalย parliaments.

As the report highlights, this allows for โ€œthe possibility of US oil companies challenging environmental regulations on fracking.โ€ Other examples include challenging regulations on chemicals in food and cosmetics as well as EU restrictions on genetically modifiedย organisms.

While ISDS provisions are not new, and are often found in bilateral investment treaties, the report concludes: โ€œWe do not believe that the case has yet been made for ISDS clauses in TTIP.โ€

Race To Theย Bottom

This is not the first government report to question the need for ISDS clauses. On 10 March, the UK parliamentary environmental audit committee (EAC) argued that the trade deal should not allow US companies to sue European nations when they pass environmental laws that hurt theirย profits.

The EAC also found that the trade deal could result in a โ€œrace to the bottomโ€, where attempts to align EU environmental safeguards to those in the US โ€“ which are generally seen to be weaker โ€“ could undermine or dilute environmentalย protections.

However, because the negotiation process is ongoing, and much of the detail has yet to be agreed on or made public, it is โ€œnot possible to come to a definitive conclusion on the benefits or risks of an extensive trade agreement,โ€ the BIS Committeeย states.

The Committee argues that the European Commission and the UK Government โ€œmust shoulder some of the blameโ€ for the fact that only a minimal level of information has been made available about TTIP.

Transparencyย Needed

Lord Livingston, the Minister of State for Trade and Investment, agreed. He told the Committee that โ€œa greater level of transparency was necessary and that this was now beingย addressed.โ€

The European Commission recently published some EU negotiating texts; however, it refuses to publish agendas or minutes of meetings held. It also argues that for data protection reasons, it cannot publish the names of meeting participants without theirย consent.

In calling for greater transparency, the BIS Committee report added that it was โ€œdeeply concernedโ€ that there will be no formal response by the UK Government to the European Commissionโ€™s current consultation on ISDS with memberย states.

โ€œIt does not give the impression that the Government is treating seriously the concerns that have been raised about the range or use of such clauses and serves only to fuel the existing scepticism held by opponents of TTIP,โ€ the report states. โ€œWe disagree with this approach. We argue that a formal response should be submitted and for that response to be made available for publicย scrutiny.โ€

@kylamandel

Photo: Open Democracy viaย Flickr

R2uAVsWy_400x400
Kyla is a freelance writer and editor with work appearing in the New York Times, National Geographic, HuffPost, Mother Jones, and Outside. She is also a member of the Society for Environmental Journalists.

Related Posts

on

Meet those aiming to capitalize on Trump's re-election by slashing climate action, from Koch network fixtures to Project 2025 and beyond.

Meet those aiming to capitalize on Trump's re-election by slashing climate action, from Koch network fixtures to Project 2025 and beyond.
on

The elite agency has been going all out to win positive press for the hosts of the UN climate talks.

The elite agency has been going all out to win positive press for the hosts of the UN climate talks.
on

One of the sponsors of the UK pavilion has worked with major polluters to help them extract more oil and gas.

One of the sponsors of the UK pavilion has worked with major polluters to help them extract more oil and gas.
on

The Heritage Foundationโ€™s Project 2025 blueprint proposes sweeping anti-climate policies.

The Heritage Foundationโ€™s Project 2025 blueprint proposes sweeping anti-climate policies.