The claims that the EU-Canada free trade agreement (CETA) is a gold standard for improving the everyday lives of citizens and safeguarding the planet are undermined by a non-binding chapter on sustainable development and by an arbitration system for settling disputes between investors and states that will give priority to the interests of business, say NGOs T&E and ClientEarth in an analysis published on Friday 18 November.
The CETA chapter on the environment does nothing to encourage the climate change mitigation measures, such as the transition towards renewable energy, as provided for by the international climate agreement concluded at the COP 21 in Paris in December 2015 and signed by Canada and the EU, this analysis states. The analysis also deplores the lack of implementation mechanisms that could bind the EU and Canada to respect these arrangements, which are already weak.
At the same time, the CETA section on regulatory cooperation focuses on regulations with an effect on trade, and not on the improvement of social and environmental policy. This cooperation system between the Canadian government and the EU is also subject to a biased system of arbitration for disputes between investors and states.
"MEPs and national parliaments must demand more from a trade deal that was negotiated in secret. To even think about calling CETA a gold standard, we need to see a legally binding environment chapter that can be enforced with sanctions”, T&E underlines.
Furthermore, the new arbitration system for disputes between investors and states – the special international court system for investment – will only hear complaints lodged by companies and not those of citizens or their governments, giving companies the possibility to bypass national courts in order to obtain damages from states when companies think they have been harmed by legislation adopted in the public interest, such as national policies favouring the development of renewable energy or legislation aimed at ensuring the decarbonisation of transport fuel, T&E warns.
"CETA is not a progressive deal. For the first time in EU-Canada relations, the whole of Europe will be exposed to claims by Canadian investors before investment tribunals. A few weak provisions on environmental commitments cannot mask that this agreement will serve business, not the planet”, ClientEarth states.
T&E and ClientEarth also deplore CETA's chapter on domestic regulation, which does not sufficiently take environmental considerations into account when issuing environmental licenses, such as whether to approve coal-fired electricity plants.
Furthermore, the two NGOs think that CETA also fails to reflect the commitment of Canada and the EU to the Paris climate agreement to foster a transition to a sustainable, green economy by decarbonising the energy and transport sectors.
In addition, with regard to tariff reduction the NGOs advocate differentiation according to environmental characteristics. Differentiation would reportedly enable phasing out tariffs on electric car engines now rather than after five years, for example.
Greens and far left want to seek CJEU's opinion. Although the CETA will be put to the vote of the European Parliament in the coming weeks for ratification and provisional entry into force, MEPs will study a proposed resolution from the Greens/EFA, EFDD, GUE/NGL and members of the S&D Group in Strasbourg on Wednesday 23 November calling for the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to verify CETA's legality in relation to European law, in particular the arbitration tribunals for disputes between investors and states.
Yannick Jadot (Greens/EFA, France) spoke out at the end of last week against censure from the grand coalition (the EPP, ALDE and S&D Groups) aimed at blocking this initiative and accelerating the CETA's approval by the European Parliament while avoiding any plenary debate and refusing an opinion from the employment and environment committees, "which would risk too much criticism". (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)