PHM-Exch> Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) will not bring health and wealth to the majority, but challenge democracy.

[Claudio Schuftan]

From: PHM Global Secretariat <globalsecretariat at phmovement.org>

*What is the TTIP?*

On 17 June 2013, the European Commission announced the start of
negotiations for a far-reaching trade deal, the Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership (TTIP) or Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement
(TAFTA). A sixth negotiation round is planned in July 2014 in Brussels. The
TTIP is to liberalise trade and investment between the EU and the US, which
together make up 40% of global economic output. What is called "the biggest
trade deal in the world" is aimed to be finalized by the end of 2014.

*Will the TTIP bring economic growth and to whom? *

"Because of the pressures of international competitiveness, there is a tone
of inevitability in the discourse of trade liberalisation. Countries are
pushed to adopt policies which are reassuring private investors". The main
argument used to support the TTIP is that it would bring economic growth.
However, its own growth study estimates show that the TTIP wouldn't be able
to live up to the promise of economic prosperity. And even if it would be
the case, the benefits of economic growth rarely reach the world's poorest
people, with the advantages of globalization remaining unequally
distributed. On top of that, in rich countries, health is affected by
inequalities within countries.

In the 90's, Bill Clinton's promised the creation of millions of jobs with
the North Atlantic Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ). Verdict 20 years later : loss
of nearly one million jobs in the United States . In Mexico, many corn
farmers went bankrupt due to the competition from the U.S. corn market ,
with a decrease of 1.4 million companies in 10 years . With NAFTA being the
blueprint of the TTIP, why would it be different this time?

*What about social protection? *

Open economies are more vulnerable to sudden change and unable to absorb
external shocks, which creates economic instability. In fact, in times of
economic instability social security systems become more important to
reduce the health risks related to psychological stress and material
conditions. Social protection should stabilise and distribute gains of
globalization to groups that would otherwise be excluded. Instead, within
the European Union, austerity is being promoted as a solution to the
eurocrisis, with public spending cuts in social protection programs and
blatant examples from the south of Europe (Greece, Spain, ...).

*Investor-state-dispute settlement mechanisms? *

On top of that, the TTIP would include notorious investor-state-dispute
settlement mechanisms that enable corporations to pursue countries on the
grounds of the loss of current or future profits. A bilateral trade and
investment agreement that contains legal rules, could thus have an effect
on national health sovereignity and could limit the public sector's policy
space. There have been several examples:

Free trade agreements VS public health

When Australia decided that cigarettes packages should be marked with
shocking health warnings, the tobacco company Phillip Morris sued Australia
before an offshore tribunal, using a trade agreement it struck with Hong
Kong.

Free trade agreements VS social protection

During its crisis, Argentina imposed a freeze on people's energy and
waterbills and was therefore sued by the utility companies. For this, the
country has been forced to pay billions of dollars in compensation.

Free trade agreements VS environment

In El Salvador, communities persuaded the government to refuse permission
for a goldmine. The Canadian mining company is now suing El Salvador for
$315 million for the loss of its anticipated future profits.

In 2012 the Swedish company Vattenfall filed a request for arbitration
against Germany, because of its decision to phase out nuclear energy.

*What about public health legislation? *

On 12 March, European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht said: "I have
repeated hundreds of times that we will not get American beef with hormones
on our plates!" However, a U.S. lobby group claimed in November 2013 that
"the strict European regulations on the use of hormones can block more than
$ 4 billion, or 40% of U.S. agricultural exports to the European Union, and
thus brings the TTIP negotiations at risk. " The purpose of the
transatlantic trade agreement is the "harmonization" of regulations. But
how does one apply this "harmonization"? Assuming to lift standards and
respect the European precautionary principle? Or does one adapt them to
American standards? Never before have bilateral or regional free trade
agreements been used to strengthen health legislation, on the contrary. So
why would we believe it this time?

*Can we reconcile fracking and environmental health? *

Shale gas extraction (or fracking ) is part of the mandate for negotiations
on the EU-US free trade agreement. In Latin America fracking projects prove
to be a threat to the environment and human health. Each well requires
between 4 and 30 million liters of water , and incloudes 80 to 300 tonnes
of carcinogens such as benzene , toluene , ethyl benzene and xylene that
could endanger the health of the surrounding communities. Extraction
projects for oil , gas and mineral extraction are numerous and pollute land
and water, resulting in a loss of biodiversity.

*Conclusion? *

It is very unlikely that the TTIP would bring prosperity to the majority of
people. Examples from existing free trade agreements show no benefit for
the wealth and health of the general population and the environment. On top
of that, it includes irreversible investment protection mechanisms which
could seriously challenge the very principles of democracy. Policy makers
should chose their priorities right. Knowing that free trade agreements,
once signed, become effectively irreversible, a far higher treshold of
certainty is required before signing bilateral trade agreements, especially
with possible impacts on health and crucial service sectors. Governments
need to guarantee the collective right to health of the population they
represent. The precautionary principle should be handled; as long as there
is no proof that population health will not be affected by the agreement,
no agreement should be signed.
Article by Natalie Van Gijsel from M3M
For more information or how to join the action against the TTIP - contact
the global secretariat on globalsecretariat at phmovement.org

--
Global Secretariat
People's Health Movement (PHM)
Email: globalsecretariat at phmovement.org
Web: www.phmovement.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://phm.phmovement.org/pipermail/phm-exchange-phmovement.org/attachments/20140515/2b0ffa3f/attachment.html>