The EU-Canada Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) is designed to facilitate the unfettered expansion of trade between the EU and Canada, including by limiting the regulatory burden for companies in both jurisdictions. This means harmonizing regulations, which historically has meant reducing them to the lowest common denominator; reducing the discretion regulators have to tailor permits to specific technological and environmental conditions; and eliminating precautionary measures by forbidding regulations that are not supported with sufficient scientific evidence.
While most of CETA came into force provisionally on September 21, 2017, the national parliaments of the EU must also ratify CETA before it can take full effect.
There is still time to stop CETA. To preserve their ability to protect their citizens, Member States should refuse to ratify it.
CETA imposes invasive and restrictive rules on how Member States protect human health and the environment. From huge Canadian mines in Greece to chemical plants in Italy to public gardens in France, CETA constrains how local governments can regulate domestic matters and protect the public interest.
In a new, four-part series, we look at why Member States should refuse to ratify CETA. Here’s an overview:
- It provides a way for Canadian companies to challenge licensing procedures for mines and other industrial projects that involve any degree of discretion or subjective considerations. The agreement also threatens to freeze Member States’ environmental protection measures in highly technical areas, such as manufacturing or mining, that require evolving regulations to accommodate advances in professional judgment, information availability, and technological best practice to mitigate environmental impacts.
- It imposes red tape on decision-makers and creates forums designed to enable the parties to influence each other’s laws. These forums would seek to align the parties’ regulations, a process that invariably results in reducing standards to the lowest common denominator. Plus, these forums would likely exclude Member State governments and members of the public.
- CETA would also significantly constrain the ability of Member States to regulate in accordance with the precautionary principle, because it requires sufficient scientific evidence be identified before measures to protect the environment can be enacted. Because conclusive scientific evidence sometimes doesn’t emerge until after a chemical or product has already caused significant harm to the environment, this is a major blow to regulators’ ability to protect the environment and public health from plausible risks.
- CETA will provide Canada and Canadian industries new ways to fight and sue over laws designed to protect the public interest before an international arbitration tribunal. If the tribunal finds in favor of the investor, the government will be liable for the damages claimed by the company. Arbitration panels have awarded millions and even billions of dollars from governments to investors. Because of the significant risk of a large award, the mere threat of a lawsuit can be enough to discourage a country from requiring an investor to abide by its public interest laws.
Instead of ratifying CETA, Member States should insist on a trade and investment policy that prioritizes the protection of human rights and the environment.
Read more about the dangerous impacts of CETA:
- CETA’s Domestic Disciplines Undermine Human Health and Environmental Protections
- CETA Undermines Greek Mining Regulations and Protections
- CETA Enables Challenges to EU Pollution Controls
- CETA Restricts Member States Ability to Protect People from Pesticides
By Layla Hughes, CIEL Senior Attorney and Olivia Chollet, Carmen Steg, and Maria Veder, CIEL interns.
Originally posted March 8, 2018