The TTIP and the Greenpeace Leaks: Bombastic or Unfounded J'Accuse?


The TTIP debate (a free trade agreement between the US and the EU) is more fiery than ever. The agreement is highly criticised because of the cloud of “secrecy” surrounding the negotiations, since almost no one is aware of its details – in what has been considered a violation of the Transparency Rules by which EU institutions must abide. Greenpeace has had access to documents detailing the terms of the TTIP and leaked them for public perusal; however, in doing so, the organisation made a grave accusation: the agreement marks the “end of the precautionary principle” - but is it true?

What is the Precautionary Principle?

The Precautionary Principle, in the Article 191 of the EU Treaty, “enables rapid response in the face of a possible danger to human, animal or plant health, or to protect the environment. In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous.” (source)

The WTO (World Trade Organisation) also states “Member countries are encouraged to use international standards, guidelines and recommendations where they exist. When they do, they are unlikely to be challenged legally in a WTO dispute. However, members may use measures which result in higher standards if there is scientific justification. They can also set higher standards based on appropriate assessment of risks so long as the approach is consistent, not arbitrary. And they can to some extent apply the 'precautionary principle', a kind of 'safety first' approach to deal with scientific uncertainty. Article 5.7 of the SPS Agreement allows temporary 'precautionary' measures.” (source)

Greenpeace: J'accuse!

Around the time this piece was written, in its site, the organisation said “The precautionary principle, enshrined in the EU Treaty[4], is not mentioned in the chapter on Regulatory Cooperation, nor in any other of the obtained 12 chapters.” (source)

The Leaks

We are now going to take a quick look at three chapters that affect public health and interest more directly - Agriculture and Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (dealing with the protection of plants and and animal health) and at the Regulatory Cooperation Chapter – to verify if indeed the TTIP intends to mark the end of the Precautionary Principle. The following information was retrieved from this source.

Agricultural Chapter

3. [EU: The Parties recognize that their respective societal choices may differ with respect to public policy decisions affecting agriculture. In this regard, nothing in this Agreement will restrain the Parties from taking measures necessary to achieve legitimate policy objectives such as the protection of public health, safety, environment or public morals, social or consumer protection, or the promotion and protection of cultural diversity that each side deems appropriate. Both Parties will seek to ensure that the effect of such measures does not create unnecessary obstacles to trade in agricultural goods between them and that the measures are not more trade-restrictive than necessary to fulfill their legitimate objective.]

It is only a matter of interpreting the text: though it does not mention “Precautionary Principle” per se it is clear the chapter does raise concerns about public health and safety and therefore (the EU for example) ensures its ability to act whenever these are in danger – is this not a mention of the principle, in many words?

Regulatory Cooperation Chapter

The general objectives of this Chapter are:
(a) To reinforce regulatory cooperation thereby facilitating trade and investment in a way that supports the Parties' efforts to stimulate growth and jobs, while pursuing a high level of protection of, inter alia, the environment, consumers, working conditions, human, animal and plant life; health and safety, personal data, cybersecurity, cultural diversity, or preserving financial stability;
(..) 

2. The provisions of this Chapter do not restrict the right of each Party to maintain, adopt and apply measures to achieve legitimate public policy objectives, such as those mentioned in paragraph 1, at the level of protection that it considers appropriate, in accordance with its regulatory framework and principles.  

The EU chooses a high level of protection that often clashes with the international standards of safety, but nevertheless the Union reserves the right to place the protection of its citizens first and international instruments confer it that same right.

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Chapter

[Note: Consistent with the recommendations of the US-EU High Level Working Group Report on Jobs and Growth, the Parties seek to establish an “SPS-plus” chapter that builds upon the key principles of the World Trade Organization (WTO) SPS agreement, including with respect to science, while preserving each Party's ability to achieving its appropriate level of protection as it relates to human, animal or plant life or health.]

The note repeats the same idea and reminds the other party that the WTO also supports its precautionary principle; making thus the US encouraged to respect the European standards of safety.

Note: additional provisions aimed at improving the use of science in SPS decision-making to be considered.

This is in line with the description of the Precautionary Principle: "In particular, where scientific data do not permit a complete evaluation of the risk, recourse to this principle may, for example, be used to stop distribution or order withdrawal from the market of products likely to be hazardous." (EU Treaty) and "members may use measures which result in higher standards if there is scientific justification" (WTO) – all to make sure that science supports the safety and health of humans and animals; in case of doubt the Principle is automatically triggered .

1. In undertaking a risk assessment appropriate to the circumstances, each Party shall ensure that it takes into account:
(a) relevant available scientific evidence, including quantitative or qualitative data and information; and
(b) relevant guidance from the WTO SOS Committee and international standards, guidelines, and recommendations concerning the risk at issue

Is this not part of the Precautionary Principle? It is (as the European Commission has explained in a Communication about the Principle).

Conclusion

Even though it is true that the Principle is not directly mentioned it is, however, identified in full. There is a purpose for this: to give margin for negotiation, not to close doors before reaching a consensus. Nevertheless, it is obvious that the concern for public and animal health, safety, consumer rights, the environment etc is present in the analysed chapters, therefore, we must question Greenpeace's peremptory statement that the Precautionary Principle is not mentioned “in the chapter on Regulatory Cooperation, nor in any other of the obtained 12 chapters” when it is present not only in the Regulatory Cooperation chapter but also in at least two others - is the organisation poorly staffed (i.e. without any ability to interpret texts) or is it funded by interest groups?

Either way, Greenpeace may have just discredited itself with this specific unfounded “J'accuse”.


(Image: Edited version - euintheus.org)

[The views expressed in this publication are solely those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views of Dissecting Society]

Comments

  1. I doubt that Greenpeace has discredited itself with its base. What concerns me more is an American government that is about as committed to free markets as Karl Marx was, negotiating a "free trade" agreement.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Looney :D!

      Well, Greenpeace was respected by people other than its base. I used to be one of them, so now: I'm out. No more support for them. This inability to interpret texts reveals many nefarious things about the organisation.

      LOL Wouldn't you be exaggerating a bit regarding your country's administration? But still, even I can see the irony...Anyway, do you think the TTIP hurts American interests?

      Looney, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
    2. Max, I think that our administration would happily negotiate away free trade arrangements in its effort to achieve ideological objectives. But for the moment genuine free trade elements of the previous agreements can be held as cards to trade for something else. My personal experience with NAFTA was that tariffs and regulations increased dramatically after the deal went through. Thus, the general rule of thumb that whatever the title of a bill is that is promulgated by leftists, the effect and the intent will be the exact opposite.

      Delete
    3. Looney,

      Well, the present leftist French government already rejected the present terms of the TTIP, so it's funny to see that not all leftists act the same way (some of them actually defend the interests of their producers and business people). But again, we need to ask if they would've acted the same way if they would be in a state of prosperity. Moderate Protectionism, in this period of crisis, may be more expedient now.

      Thank you for answering my question, Looney.

      Delete
    4. Max,

      One thing I have observed is that European socialists do socialism better. My speculation is that Europeans view their society as socialist, thus, they aren't prone to blowing things up randomly, but rather look to make it work. The result can be quite mercantilist. The US is only a notch below Europe in terms of socialist organization, but we have the narrative that we are a bunch of capitalist fanatics. The result is that random acts of destruction against our own economy are much more likely to happen.

      Delete
    5. Looney, true: European socialists do whatever they can to make socialism work, though it doesn't, no matter how hard they try. But sometimes they do defend the people's interests instead of their own.
      I think that your country is moving towards a Social Democracy, which is a blurred line. Portugal has tried it and it eventually fell into the socialist trap. The US better watch its back.

      "The result is that random acts of destruction against our own economy are much more likely to happen."

      I hear you.

      Delete
  2. Specificity and description of details is important in any agreement. But like you said, it also leaves margin and flexibility to further negotiations to reach a consensus. Looney is right, greenpeace's base is a bunch of idiots blinded by their ideology. But to many of us who respected their environmental work, yes they discredited themselves.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anonymous :D!

      Indeed. Exactly, I used to respect them too, but now I don't. Yet the fools will keep on supporting them...

      Anon, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  3. Greenpeace's base is too thick skinned for it to discredit the former. And the TTIP simply is an unfolding game being played by the two sides.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Rummy :D!

      I'm more inclined to think that Greenpeace's base is too thick, period. But my target audience is a different set of people who admired their work, and I'm included in that group, but may feel disappointed by this media greed bordering fallacy. But oh well...

      The TTIP may be a game but one that must be closely followed because it can become dangerous to Europeans.

      Rummy, thank you ever so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  4. The ttip is a dangerous agreement. Ok, the precautionary principle is there but it also says the principles do not preclude reaching an agreement, in other words, GMOs can enter the European market! Who wants that? Americans can keep their lab synthetized food and leave us alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Pietr :D!

      It can be. If GMOs enter the market the importer and/or distributor, according to the agreement, are/is liable for it and they/it will pay fines (severe ones) because it's their/his responsibility to abide by the European law regarding banned products and ingredients. And attached to that fact, we have the regulation on the proper identification of ingredients used in the products placed in the market, so even if the EU would lose it for a moment (due to special interests, corruption etc) at least the consumer would be able to make an informed decision and not buy GMOs. Eventually, the products would disappear from the market unless the goal is to kill the less fortunate ones (who are usually the most ignorant and more carefree about their diet and health)...

      But I agree we have to keep an eye on this TTIP issue.

      Pietr, thank you so much for your comment :D.

      Cheers

      Delete
  5. Olá Max! why do we need this treaty when we already enjoy trade privileges with the Americans? It is suspicious but Greenpeace shouldn't use propaganda to call people's attention to a potential danger. They don't need it but since most organizations today are ran by leftists, and boy do they love their propaganda, we shouldn't be too surprised! Anyway, I support those who resist the TTIP and the EU Commission should be more transparent about it which they're not, not when not even the MEPs have access to the details, why? MEPs are the legislators, they should have access to it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Dissecting Society welcomes all sorts of comments, as we are strong advocates of freedom of speech; however, we reserve the right to delete Troll Activity; libellous and offensive comments (e.g. racist and anti-Semitic) plus those with excessive foul language. This blog does not view vulgarity as being protected by the right to free speech. Cheers