Trade deals are proliferating. The claim is they boost economies. The reality is rather different, and the costs - especially for those in the farming sector - are high. Too high to accept, in fact.

1.
what are we trading
away?
glyn moody

2.
the new "trade" deals
 lack of progress of Doha round of
WTO talks (2001)
 actually emerging economies trying
to correct pro-Western bias of
Uruguay round of WTO talks (1994)
 Western countries – and companies
– have taken new tack
 replace multilateral consensus by
plurilateral "club" agreements
 TPP, CETA, TTIP, (TISA)

3.
TPP
 TPP - Trans-Pacific Partnership
agreement
 started 2005 - Brunei, Chile, New
Zealand, and Singapore
 2008 - Australia, Canada, Japan,
Malaysia, Mexico, Peru, the
United States, and Vietnam joined
 negotiations concluded 5 October
2015
 2016 battle over ratification

4.
TPP by numbers
 basic text is 6,194 pages long
 30 chapters; 48 annexes; "related
instruments" and "side chapters"
 negotiated in secret, so first
time public saw complete text 5
November 2015
 key feature of new "trade" deals
 secret while negotiated
 set in stone once released
 effectively, no public input

5.
CETA
 Comprehensive Economic and Trade
Agreement
 between EU and Canada
 negotiations began May 2008,
"concluded" August 2014
 new Canadian government means
discussions still continuing
 *tiny* benefits: after 7 years,
0.08% boost to EU GDP, 0.77% to
Canadian GDP (EU-CA study, 2007)

6.
TTIP
 Transatlantic Trade and
Investment Partnership
 began June 2013
 between EU and US
 narrows plurilateral approach to
bilateral agreement
 complements TPP
 goes beyond TPP, moves even
further from classic trade deals

7.
TTIP's benefits
 central justification is that
TTIP will boost EU and US
economies "for free"
 CEPR study predicts boost of €119
billion (EU), €95 billion (US)
 "ambitious scenario"
 GDP boost in 2027, after 10 years
 actually 0.05% extra GDP/year
 as with CETA, close to zero
 *no* estimate of costs or risks

8.
risks for EU agriculture
 European Parliament study (2014)
 "some EU sectors could face
serious competition"
 "disadvantaged by the extra costs
involved in complying with EU
regulations"
 "EU constraints on the use of
genetically modified organisms
(GMOs), on pesticide use, and on
food safety measures in the meat
sector"

9.
risks for SME EU farms (I)
 Elżbieta Bieńkowska,Internal
Market, Industry,
Entrepreneurship and SMEs (2015)
 "SMEs must be at the heart of
TTIP"
 no estimate of risks for SMEs
 German Association of Green
Business report (2016)
 "Risks for small and medium
enterprises in the Agriculture and
Food Industry"

10.
risks for SME EU farms (II)
 small, family-run EU farms unable
to compete with US mega-farms
 higher costs from higher animal
welfare in EU
 US use of EU-banned hormones (BST,
ractopamine)
 higher costs from lower pesticide
use – US levels 500 times higher
 widespread use of cheaper
*patented* GMO crops in US

11.
benefits for agriculture I
 study from US Department of
Agriculture (November 2015)
 "classic" TTIP trade agreement
 US exports to EU +$5.5 billion
 EU exports to US +$0.8 billion
 global agriculture trade
 US exports +2%, imports +1%
 EU exports -0.25%, imports +0.5%

12.
benefits for agriculture II
 "new style" TTIP trade agreement
 US exports to EU +$9.6 billion
 EU exports to US +$2 billion
 global agriculture trade
 US exports +4%, imports +2%
 EU exports "decline", imports +1%
 "new style" = removing "non-
tariff barriers"

13.
non-tariff barriers (NTBs)
 removal of NTBs central to TTIP's
claimed benefits
 CEPR study
 paid for by European Commission
 analysed GDP boost
 20% of TTIP's claimed GDP boost
comes from removing tariffs
 existing tariffs 3% on average
 80% comes from removing non-
tariff barriers

14.
NTBs = regulations
 different regulations in EU, US
 health, safety, environment,
labour, finance
 many of the key non-tariff
barriers are agricultural bans
 BST growth hormones for beef
 ractopamine in pigs
 bans on GMOs
 chlorine washing of chickens
 US wants to remove all these

15.
EU regulations = EU culture
 codification of European farming
traditions
 cultural expressions of Europe
 the way we want to grow our food
 welfare enhancing for EU citizens
 we benefit from their existence
 fruits of democracy
 expressions of collective will
 for TTIP: "trade irritants"

16.
tackling NTBs
 levelling down – EU says no
 levelling up – US says no
 mutual recognition
 chemicals in cosmetics
 1300 ingredients banned in EU
 11 ingredients banned in US
 1289 chemicals banned in EU could
be used in US products sold here
 future convergence

17.
regulatory chapter
 new regulatory acts must involve
 stakeholder consultations
 impact assessments
 Regulatory Co-operation Body
 important new opportunities for
lobbying and legal challenges
 effectively a ratchet on
regulations – weakening them
 gives big companies huge power to
shape rules of business & society

18.
ISDS
 investor-state dispute settlement
 secret tribunal of three lawyers
 no limits to awards, no appeals
 Philip Morris sued Australia and
lost, still suing Uruguay, over
tobacco reduction measures
 Eli Lilly suing Canada over drug
patent requirements
 chilling effect on new
legislation

19.
ISDS in EU
 127 ISDS cases brought against EU
countries since 1994; €30 billion
claims, €3.5 billion awards (67)
 TTIP: 20,000 US companies (50,000
subsidiaries) able to sue EU+MS
 ISDS covers
 all *existing* investments
 copyright and patents (ratchet)
 so bad, EU proposing Investment
Court System (ICS) to replace it

20.
ISDS in Poland
 one of the worst hit by ISDS
cases
 party to more than 60 agreements
with ISDS provisions
 16 known cases filed against it
 €12 billion sought
 €2.2 billion paid out so far
 among the most frequent target of
US claims using 1990 BIT
 1 year's notice to terminate

21.
TTIP's locks and ratchets
 regulatory "harmonisation", ISDS
 locks and ratchets designed to
constrain a signatory
government's future actions
 force moves towards deregulation
 only consider impact on companies
 render public views irrelevant
 not just undermining democracy,
but *bypassing* it

22.
what are we trading away?
 trading local small-scale,
family-farm food production
 trading away EU-style agriculture
 trading away EU's internal market
 USDA: "decrease in overall EU
agricultural exports largely
attributable to a reduction in
intra-EU trade"
 trading away European culture
 trading away democracy

23.
trading away ourselves
glyn.moody@gmail.com
@glynmoody on Twitter
@glynmoody on identi.ca
+glynmoody on Google+
opendotdotdot.blogspot.com