Brussels, 13/01/2015 (Agence Europe) - The public consultation conducted in spring 2014 on protecting investments as part of the free trade (TTIP) negotiations between the EU and US, confirms that stakeholders are clearly sceptical about including an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) mechanism in the future TTIP agreement. Around 150,000 stakeholders responded to this consultation and an analysis of the replies was unveiled by the European Commission on Tuesday 13 January.
“The consultation clearly shows that there is a huge scepticism against the ISDS instrument”, said European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström on Tuesday 13 January, promising a “frank and open” discussion on this issue with member state governments, the European Parliament and all the stakeholders in the first three months of this year - before making any political recommendation. The results will first be presented to the European Parliament's international trade committee on 22 January.
The key goal of the consultation (which was launched by Malmström's predecessor, Karel De Gucht, in March 2014 in response to the very real and very numerous concerns shown at the Parliament and by civil society) was to find out whether the approach proposed by the EU for protecting investments as part of TTIP would enable a fair balance to be achieved between protecting investors on the one hand, and safeguarding the EU's right and ability to regulate in the general interest, on the other.
The consultation questionnaire set out the EU's approach around a dozen themes, including the guarantees of governments' right to regulate in the general interest, full transparency of arbitration proceedings, ethical requirements for arbitration, and a possible appeals body.
The vast majority of replies (around 145,000 or 97%), submitted through the online platforms of interest groups, contained predefined negative answers, the Commission stated. It added that it had received individual responses from more than 3,000 people and from nearly 450 organisations representing a wide spectrum of European civil society.
Overall, these replies can be divided into three categories: (1) replies which indicate opposition to, or concerns around, TTIP in general; (2) replies opposing, or expressing general concerns about, investment protection/ISDS in TTIP; (3) replies which provide detailed comments on the EU's suggested approach in TTIP, representing broad and divergent views.
The numerous replies in the first two categories clearly show that many citizens throughout Europe have concerns about TTIP in general and about the principle itself of investment protection and ISDS, the Commission states. The replies in the third category contain, in some cases, concrete suggestions for further change. The views are divided with regard to almost all the issues under consideration, the Commission states. It underlines that the respondents attach particular importance to the protection of the right to regulate, to the establishment and functioning of arbitration courts, to the relationship between national judicial systems and ISDS, and to the review of ISDS decisions for legal correctness through an appellate mechanism. These are four areas of work that should be explored further, the Commission concludes. (EH)