Tag Archives: agreement

100GW solar support in US-India climate talks, but no emissions cuts Updated for 2026





Hopes that India and the US might announce ambitious plans to co-operate in tackling climate change have proved wide of the mark.

A meeting here between the visiting US president, Barack Obama, and Indian prime minister Narendra Modi, showed India determined to follow an independent line.

One agreement reached was on nuclear power: the two leaders smoothed the way for India to import US technology for any future nuclear plants, under a deal to limit the legal liability of US suppliers in the event of a nuclear power plant catastrophe.

Yes to renewables, no to emissions cuts

Modi and Obama also announced action to advance India’s transition to a low-carbon economy, and India reiterated its goal of increasing its solar target to 100 gigawatts by 2022, which the US said it would support.

Modi went on to urge nations with the greatest solar energy potential to join India in innovation and research to reduce the cost of the technology and make it more accessible.

But on emissions, there was no repeat of the recent agreement between the US and China reached just before the UN climate talks in Lima last December.

“The agreement that has been concluded between the US and China does not impose pressure on us”, said Modi. “India is an independent country. But climate change and global warning itself is huge pressure.”

He offered no indication of a reduction in the use of coal, which currently generates most of India’s power. However Modi did agree to phase out the use of the ‘super-GHG’ hydrofluorocarbon gases used in refrigeration and foam blowing – while insisting that India demands “equal treatment” in cutting GHGs. 

Anu Jogesh, a senior research associate with the Centre for Policy Research’s Climate Initiative, said: “There was a lot of buzz in policy circles and the media that there might be some kind of announcement, not on emission cuts per se but on renewable energy. However, apart from the nuclear agreement, little else has emerged.”

But other analysts argue that there has been little time yet for Modi and Obama to develop a strong working relationship, and that it could be premature to dismiss the outcome of this meeting as disappointing.

What does this presage for Paris 2015?

India’s Ministry of External Affairs said that Modi and Obama had “stressed the importance of working together and with other countries to conclude an ambitious climate agreement in Paris in 2015.” But there was no sign of any advances on key issues.

Before last month’s UN climate talks in Lima, Peru, India said it had put in place several action plans for achieving Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which are key elements of the climate agreement due to be concluded at the next round of talks in Paris in December.

However no details of India’s INDCs emerged during Obama’s visit, as officials continued to maintain that its INDCs will be announced “at an appropriate time with specific contributions.”

Last week Modi hinted at his country’s thinking on climate when he called for a paradigm shift in global attitudes towards climate change – from “carbon credits” towards “green credits”:

“Instead of focusing on emissions and cuts alone, the focus should shift to what we have done for clean energy generation, energy conservation and energy efficiency, and what more can be done in these areas.”

India is the world’s third largest GHG emitter, after China and the US. However it generates only two tonnes of CO2 equivalent per capita, compared with 20 tonnes in the US and eight in China.

 


 

Nivedita Khandekar is a Delhi-based independent journalist who writes on environmental, developmental and climate change issues for Climate News Network and other news media. Email: nivedita_him@rediffmail.com; Twitter: @nivedita_Him .

 

 




389584

Closing the gate on GMO and the criminal transatlantic trade agreement Updated for 2026





A determined effort by all of us, who care about real food and real farming, will be needed to stop one of the most insidious attempts yet to end Europe’s widespread resistance to genetically modified organisms.

In particular, the use of GM seeds in European agriculture, leading to genetically modified crops being grown in areas that have, up until now, successfully resisted the GM corporate invasion.

The EU has so far licenced just one GM maize variety (MON 810) to be grown within its territories, and one potato variety (Amflora) for industrial starch production.

Up until now, the EU has acted according to a largely restrictive trade practice concerning GM and other controversial food products due to major public pressure, as well as under a broad EU ruling termed ‘the precautionary principle’.

Goodbye to all that?

All that could be about to go out the window under current negotiations between the USA and the European Commission to ratify a new trade agreement known TTIP, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership.

The objective of this ‘partnership’ is to facilitate far going corporate control of the international market place and to prize-open the mostly closed (but not locked) European door on GM crops and seeds.

While this corporate heist is being eased into place, replicas are being negotiated between Canada and the EU under the title ‘Comprehensive Economic Trade Agreement’ CETA.

And as if that wasn’t enough, a further dismantling of trade tariffs is underway via the ‘Trade In Services Agreement’ TiSA: a wide ranging further liberalization of corporate trading conditions as a direct continuation of the WTO (World Trade Organisation) GATS agreement, with its highly onerous, corporate biased ‘Codex Alimentarius’ sanitary and hygiene rulings. Indigenous seeds and medicinal herbs are particularly under attack via Codex.

We can thus recognize, from the outset, that a very dangerous interference of the already leaky checks and balances that control the import/export market is underway here.

The thinly disguised under-text reveals plans for a massive corporate take-over of all negotiated quasi-democratic trade agreements and food quality controls that currently take place between the US and EU. It is clear that the major corporate concerns are determined to overcome or dilute, all resistance to their unfettered ‘free trade’ goals.

Corporations, not the people, hold governments to account

Where they are blocked, corporations are claiming the right to sue governments and institutions held to be “infringing the principle of international free trade”. Such litigation procedures are not new, but the idea of writing them into a major trading agreement has sparked major controversy.

For example in Germany, where one of the main Swedish nuclear power construction companies is attempting to sue the German government for billions of euros, with the intention of gaining full compensation for the ban on nuclear power enacted earlier by the Merkel government.

To add a further sinister twist to this already draconian exercise in power politics, the court hearings on such actions are slated to take place in secret, in a court house in Washington DC. Such secret courts are already operational in the UK, where ‘sensitive cases’ can be heard out of sight of public scrutiny with no reports or summaries of the proceedings released into the public domain.

Here we witness the Orwellian control system fully up and running, with its attendant undisguised destruction of many decades of hard won civil liberties.

The unremitting and relentless nature of this neo-capitalist and corporate centralization of power is causing significant resistance to manifest itself. Earlier this month, 1.1 million people across Europe signed a card for Commission President Juncker calling on him to ditch TTIP.

As John Hilary, a member of Stop TTIP‘s Citizens’ Committee commented: “Politicians are always calling for citizens to get actively involved in European politics, and here are more than a million people who have done just that. On his 60th birthday, Juncker should blow out the candles on these massively unpopular and undemocratic trade deals that are opposed by people across Europe.

But the truth is, we are all going to have to get involved to ensure a people led victory.

GMOs – the corporate attack is already under way

As an organic farmer myself, I’m concentrating on the food and farming implications. But it is very important not to loose sight of the true intention behind all aspects of these nefarious trade agreements.

As a precursor to TTIP, a major shift in GMO legislation was already voted in by the EU’s Environmental Council on 12 June 2014 (the final vote to be taken in the European Parliament, January 2015).

After many years of EU member state disagreement on GM issues – leading to negotiation stalemate – this controversial agreement devolved GMO decision making procedures from Brussels to EU member states.

In the process however, it gives the green light to pro GMO governments to allow the planting of GM crops in their countries, while anti GM member states can put forward economic and environmental health arguments to ban GM crops.

Under the first draft of this agreement, countries wishing to block GM plantings were called upon to seek permission to ban such crops from the very corporations that are proposing to introduce them! A proposal whose unprecidented arrogance echoes the corporate agenda of TTIP and CETA trade proposals.

Fortunately, after intensive public lobbying, this clause was dropped on 11th November 2014. Nevertheless, what we have in front of our eyes is a strong GMO warning light.

‘Mutual recognition’ is a race to the bottom

The TTIP agreement would allow GM crops and seeds currently banned in Europe – as well as various medicated animal products such as US hormone enriched beef – to have a largely unrestricted flow into the EU.

In the process they would by-pass the ‘precautionary principle’ and the European Food Safety Agency’s views (for what they are worth) on the efficacy of such products.

So it would, in effect, remove any differences in trade related legislation between the EU and US. Because in corporate speak, such differences are held up as being ‘trade distorting’.

TTIP could also be used to attack positive food related initiatives in the US, such as ‘local preference’ legislation at the state level. It calls for ‘mutual recognition’ between trading blocks: trade speak for lowering standards.

Consumer groups have already pointed out that mutual recognition of standards is not an acceptable approach since it will require at least one of the parties to accept food that is not of a currently acceptable standard.

To put it in simple terms: the pressure to lower standards in Europe to ‘resolve the inconsistencies’ will be strong, and far more likely to succeed than the other solution: to raise standards in the USA.

Phrases like ‘harmonization’ and ‘regulatory cooperation’ are a frequently occuring part of TTIP trade speak. But in the end it’s all going one way: downwards, to the lowest common denominator.

TTIP a ‘main priority for the year ahead’

According to Corporate Europe Observatory: “Under TTIP’s chapter on ‘regulatory cooperation’ any future measure that could lead us towards a more sustainable food system, could be deemed ‘a barrier to trade’ and thus refused before it sees the light of day.

“Big business groups like Business Europe and the US Chamber of Commerce have been pushing for this corporate lobby dream scenario before the US-EU negotiations ever began. What they want from regulatory cooperation is to essentially co-write legislation and to establish a permanent EU-US dialogue to work towards harmonizing standards long after TTIP has been signed.

“Despite earlier reservations, the Commission now seems to go along with with this corporate dream. Leaked EU proposals from December 2013 outline a new system of regulatory cooperation between the EU and US, that will enable decisions to be made without any public oversight or engagement.”

What this means is that new, highly controversial GM seed lines will have virtually no publicly scrutinized safety net to slow or halt their progress to the fields and dinner plates of Europe.

One of the most determined voices behind the realization of TTIP’s ambitions is ex Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk: As the Guardian tells us: “Taking office this week as the new president of the European Council, chairing summits and mediating between national leaders, Donald Tusk, Poland’s former prime minister, singled out TTIP as one of his main priorities for the year ahead.”

Tusk, as prime minister of Poland, had already displayed his bias towards big business, by backing strategies to sell tranches of Poland’s most productive farmland to the highest foreign bidders, while simultaneously cosying-up to the EU Commission’s big chiefs.

Tusk is complicit, if not a leading voice, in supporting the overt centralization of political power in Brussels and the steady dismantling of national sovereignty: the right for countries to decide and control their own futures.

The end of national sovereignty?

TTIP and CETA are perfect weapons for the long planned for destruction of national sovereignty. Trade negotiators, GM exponents, big farming unions, agrichemical businesses and food processing giants are all in on the game and have strong lobby groups backing TTIP.

Their view on what the word ‘cooperation’ means goes like this, according to Corporate Europe Observatory: “A system of regulatory cooperation would prevent ‘bad decisions’ – thereby avoiding having to take governments to court later.”

These ‘bad decisions’ to be avoided include any attempts by governments to rein-in the overt lust for power which is the hallmark of the corporate elite.

For example, biotech and pesticide giants Syngenta and Bayer, are taking the European Union to court over its partial ban on three insecticides from the Neonicotinoid family, because of their deadly impact on bees.

However let us be clear, the European Union is only acting this way because of intense public pressure to do so; left to its own devices there would be no discernible difference between it and the corporate elite who stalk the corridors of power at the European Commission and European Parliament.

The underlying goal of ‘regulatory cooperation’ between industry and the EU, is to have a continuous ‘on going’ dialogue (known as ‘living agreement’) that could ultimately render any final TTIP agreement largely meaningless.

Meaningless, because it could by-pass any failures of TTIP to gain concessions on food and environmental standards by focusing on altering ‘implementation rules’ – rather than taking the more arduous route of altering ‘the law’ itself.

Tinkering with ‘implementation rules’ simply offers another way for corporate friendly concessions to become enshrined in common trading rights.

Resisting the corporate takeover of the food chain

Reassurances from EU and US negotiators that “food standards will not be lowered” look highly suspect. Farmers should be alert to the fact that, because of TTIP, imports are highly likely be allowed that do not meet local standards, thus undermining national trading disciplines.

This applies across the spectrum and includes currently non-compliant GMO crops. According to Corporate Europe Observatory, “Regulatory convergence will fundamentally change the way politics is done in the future, with industry sitting right at the table, if they get their way.”

If they get their way.

All groups and organizations that care about retaining a largely GMO Free Europe and the consumption of genuine, healthy food – in tandem with the ecological farming methods that produce it – had better jump to the task of stopping TTIP, and its related trading blocks, from destroying the last line of defence against a complete corporate take-over of the food chain.

Join the resistance today!

 


 

Campaign: Stop TTIP!

Julian Rose is an early pioneer of UK organic farming, international activist and author. He is currently the President of The International Coalition to Protect the Polish Countryside. His most recent book ‘In Defence of Life – A Radical Reworking of Green wisdom’ is published by Earth Books. Julian’s website is www.julianrose.info.

 

 




388368

The UN climate talks just failed – now for the real battle Updated for 2026





The annual UN Climate Talks ended on Sunday in Lima, Peru. In case you were wondering, nothing happened.

In fact, possibly worse than nothing happened. Instead of being on track to sign, in December 2015 in Paris, a binding agreement to cut harmful emissions backed by all nations, we are forcefully sliding towards an agreement for each nation to do what it wants, including nothing.

There is a new acronym at the UN jargon university for this: ‘Intended Nationally Determined Contributions’, or INDCs. It’s a code-word for everyone to do what they please, in two steps.

  • First, key governments worldwide will maybe (or maybe not) outline, by March 2015, what actions (i.e., INDCs) they intend to take under a global agreement.
  • Second, the INDCs are intended to be added up into an agreement in Paris and compared against what we need to do to limit temperature increases to 2 degrees, the accepted climate change speed limit.

But because these INDCs amount to nothing, we already know that any agreement in Paris will also amount to nothing. INDCs won’t have binding (legal) consequences, aren’t subject to review and don’t come with transparent, strong monitoring obligations.

Two consequences are clear, as they have been for some time.

  • First, emissions will continue to rise as the rot from a failed UN process spreads to every corner of the world.
  • Second, as I argued previously, instead of wasting resources on a failed UN process, we should target the 90 companies which are responsible for two-thirds of the harmful emissions generated since the industrial age began. Eighty percent of their reserves need to be locked away underground to avoid a catastrophe.

This tiny number of large companies, lobbying to prevent action on climate change, are at the heart of our current carbon-intensive model. They know that their business model is not under threat from the UN climate talks.

Shell – leveraging the climate debate

In Lima, Shell’s top climate advisor was comfortable enough to admit that Shell enjoys its relationship with the notorious American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a shadowy shop specialised in aggressive efforts to counteract emissions reductions and regulations.

This is the same ALEC which, in the words of Google executive chairman Eric Schmidt, is “literally lying” about climate science.

Big Oil is fighting a broader battle, trying to influence public opinion and governments at a national and community level.

I experienced their tactics far away from Lima last week, when I had the displeasure of attending National Geographic‘s ‘Big Energy Question’ round table event in New Delhi, India. This invitation-only forum convened 40 experts on air pollution in India, to examine its causes, its impacts on the environment and health, and possible solutions.

Four of these experts were from Shell, a prominent member of history’s top 90 polluters. Shell was also paying the costs. Its logo was everywhere, cuddling alongside National Geographic‘s.

Well, the predictable happened: The event was hijacked by Shell, ensuring that the Government of India didn’t hear of any solutions which did not prominently feature oil and gas.

The first word, last word, and most of the words in between

I wanted to see first-hand Big Oil in action, co-opting respected brands, academics and experts, throwing its money around. In New Delhi, Shell sprinkled its representatives around the room, controlling the debate as well as extracting the right to the last word.

As it turns out, Shell got the word after the last word too. After the proceedings closed, a heretofore undisclosed Shell representative felt he had to emphasise the company’s commitment to powering India.

That presumably includes significantly worsening its already dreadful pollution levels. According to the World Health Institute, six of the top ten most polluted cities in the world are in India.

There was not a word about Shell’s support for groups opposing climate regulations; for Arctic drilling; for covering up the extensive destruction of the environment in the Niger Delta; or for the fact that over the past 10 years, Shell’s potential emissions from tar sands (oil produced from tar sands is the world’s dirtiest and most environmentally destructive) increased by five times, according to a new report by New York based Fossil Free Indexes.

What Shell was doing in India was pernicious: It was leveraging all the goodwill associated with National Geographic‘s brand (“inspiring people to care about the planet since 1888”) to subvert real climate action.

The one power big enough to take on Shell, and its like

Big Oil knows that the international capital markets are the only power which can force them to keep their reserves in the ground, by increasing their financial cost of capital to a level commensurate with their destructive activities.

What better way to ensure the capital markets don’t turn against them than by co-opting innocent brands like National Geographic to dilute expert opinion?

Rising investor and regulatory voices (including that of the Bank of England) want to know what happens if untapped deposits of oil, gas and coal become stranded assets – because extracting them dooms us – and this movement is gaining traction from Wall Street to the City of London. That’s the real threat to Big Oil’s business model and Shell knows it.

We need to stop Big Oil’s efforts to silence the substantive debates experts are trying to have around the world about the most effective way to shift to 100% clean energy by 2050.

And it’s time for the likes of National Geographic to do their part by refusing Big Oil’s corrupting money.

 




388163

COP20: an agreement of sorts. Now, a rocky climate road to Paris Updated for 2026





A deal struck in Lima between 196 nations yesterday leaves open the possibility of saving the planet from dangerous overheating. But its critics say the prospects of success are now slim.

The talks – which ran two days longer than scheduled – set a series of deadlines which mean that every nation is charged with producing its plans to cap and reduce emissions and adapt to climate change.

These commitments will then be assessed to see if they are enough to prevent the world heating up more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold political leaders say must not be crossed in order to avoid dangerous climate change.

The Lima agreement invites all countries to set out their plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 31 March. The next step will be to draft a legally binding international agreement on how to get below the 2°C threshold. This text is to be made available to all countries for comment by May 2015.

All eyes on Paris

By 1st November the secretariat of the UN Climate Change Convention is supposed to have assessed whether the commitment of these 196 nations is enough to stop the world overheating – and, if it is not, to point out by how far they will miss the target.

All this is to set the stage for a dramatic final negotiation in Paris in a year’s time, when a blueprint for a legally enforceable deal is supposed to be on the table. This is a tall order, however, because each time the parties meet the rich and poor countries wage the same arguments over again.

The developing countries say the rich developed countries that caused the problem in the first place must make deep cuts in their emissions and pay huge sums for the poorer countries to adapt to climate change.

The rich countries say that the fast industrialisation of many developing countries means that these countries must cut emissions too, otherwise the world will overheat anyway.

The poorest countries of all, and the small island states, who everyone agrees have no responsibility for the problem, want much more dramatic curbs on emissions, and more money for adaptation to sea level rise and climate extremes than is likely to be forthcoming.

The new climate reality: China, India, Brazil are now big-scale emitters

The talks take place amid their own jargon, with phrases like the “principle of common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities, in light of different national circumstances” seen as essential to point up the difference between rich and poor nations and what they are expected to do.

The talks have dragged on for 15 years since the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, in which the rich nations agreed to the first cuts in emissions while allowing the poorer nations to continue developing.

Now that China has overtaken the US as the world’s biggest polluter, and countries like Brazil and India are fast catching up, the scientific case is that every country has to curb its emissions, or else everyone faces disaster.

But whether the talks have gone far enough to allow a deal to be reached in Paris next year is a matter of many opinions.

“As a text it’s not perfect, but it includes the positions of the parties”, said Manuel Pulgar-Vidal, the Peruvian environment minister, who presided over the talks and must have been relieved he got a text on which every country was prepared to agree.

Eco-NGO’s caustic reaction

Environmental groups were scathing about the outcome. Sam Smith, chief of climate policy for WWF, said: “The text went from weak to weaker to weakest and it’s very weak indeed.

“Governments crucially failed to agree on specific plans to cut emissions before 2020 … The science is clear that delaying action until 2020 will make it near-impossible to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, yet political expediency won over scientific urgency.”

“It’s definitely watered down from what we expected”, said Alden Meyer of the Union of Concerned Scientists. “There are deep and long-standing divisions on major issues including climate finance, which countries are more obligated to take action to reduce emissions, and whether to give greater priority to adaptation.

“These divisions nearly derailed the process in Lima; if they aren’t addressed, they threaten to block an agreement in Paris.”

Another problem, he added, was that many of the proposals made by the industrialised countries were obscure and incomplete: “The resistance by some countries to allowing scrutiny of their proposals is troubling.”

All eyes to Paris 2015

Friends of the Earth’s International’s Asad Rehman was equally scathing. “The only thing these talks have achieved is to reduce the chances of a fair and effective agreement to tackle climate change in Paris next year”, he said.

“Once again poorer nations have been bullied by the industrialised world into accepting an outcome which leaves many of their citizens facing the grim prospect of catastrophic climate change. We have the ingenuity and resources to build the low carbon future we so urgently need – but we still lack the political will.

“With the world speeding towards catastrophic climate change, wealthy industrialised nations who have contributed most to our polluted atmosphere must take the lead in tackling this threat. The next 12 months are crucial – failure to act will have a devastating impact on us all.”

FOEI says a number of key areas must be resolved if a fair and meaningful agreement is to be reached in Paris next year, including:

  • Wealthy industrialised nations must pledge bigger cuts in their emissions by 2020;
  • Wealthy industrialised nations must provide adequatefinance and technology to enable developing countries to tackle climate change and adapt to its impacts and support those already being impacted;
  • Wealthy industrialised nations must provide the finance and technology for a global renewable energy transformation;
  • All countries to commit to doing their fair share of effort to keep temps below 1.5C.

Catch-up time – but it can be done!

But those not keen on limiting their own development were happy. “We got what we wanted”, said Prakash Javadekar, India’s environment minister.

Despite the different views the talks did not break down, and so there is still hope. This assessment from Mohammed Adow, Christian Aid’s senior climate change adviser, probably accurately sums up the Lima result:

“The countdown clock to Paris is now ticking. Countries had the chance to give themselves a head start on the road to Paris but instead have missed the gun and now need to play catch-up.”

And Meyer says there is still hope that things may come good at Paris in 2015: “While the Lima summit fell short of expectations, the pressure is still on countries to put forward their best emissions reduction offers early next year.

“The good news is that the world’s three largest emitters – China, Europe, and the US – have already committed to do so, and others are expected to join them.”

 


 

Paul Brown writes for Climate News Network.

Oliver Tickell edits The Ecologist.

 




388160

Three card trick – the rich countries’ plan to evade their climate obligations exposed Updated for 2026





Negotiations towards the post-2020 climate agreement have been running for three years but we are yet to see real text-based negotiations.

This is not an accident, but a part of a broader strategy by those who don’t want a comprehensive and effective climate deal agreed in Paris.

Developed countries want to curb climate change without bearing the burdens and costs. To do this they need to change the climate regime and shift the burdens and costs to developing countries.

Their goal in Paris is a new mitigation-focused 2020 agreement that is weaker for developed countries than the Kyoto Protocol, and stronger for developing countries.

It would exclude meaningful commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity and shift the burden of combating climate change further onto the world’s poor.

Avoiding historical, legal and moral obligations

To achieve this they will end the Kyoto Protocol by inserting 2020 targets that require no reductions (EU), inserting no targets (New Zealand, Japan, Russia), or pulling out altogether (Canada) – effectively rendering the Protocol a dead letter. To this end, they have not fulfilled their Doha commitment to revisit their inadequate 2020 Kyoto targets.

And under the plan, they must also avoid their main obligations under the Climate Convention – on mitigation for developed countries (Art. 4.2), finance (4.3), adaptation (4.4) and technology (4.5).

As these ‘differentiated’ legal obligations will not go away, so they are to be ignored in the pre-2020 period, before being supplanted by a 2020 agreement.

The developed ‘Annex 1’ countries also need to replace the principle of ‘equity’ and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ – because this is the basis of the differentiated legal commitments, and because a common-sense interpretation requires much greater effort from the developed countries.

Ultimately, developed countries want to avoid a legal obligation requiring them to show leadership, so they wish to erase the legal structure of the Annexes that requires more from them.

Instead they propose that under the new agreement countries would ‘self-differentiate’ through their own ‘nationally determined’ contributions. In effect every country would be able to do as much, or as little, as it likes.

Rather than implementing their current commitments, they seek to evade them, and shift them to poorer countries.

How the process is being controlled

This deregulation of the climate regime as it applies to the developed countries would not be voluntarily agreed to by most developing countries, so the negotiating process and documents are being used to achieve this.

To get developing countries to agree to new negotiations the impression was given that the 2020 agreement would cover all elements – mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity and transparency – but without ever actually committing to do so.

Consequently, the Durban Platform said Parties would “work” on the elements – but without clearly saying they would be part of the 2020 agreement. This impression will be maintained until the last minute.

Thus a discussion about ‘elements’ continues with the Co-Chairs collecting everyone’s ideas into a ‘non-paper’ – a non-paper that has no legal status and so can eventually disappear without trace.

The Co-Chairs have tightly managed the process to prevent real party-to-party negotiations. Instead they ‘hear’ the Parties and include what they like of what they hear in the non-paper. The intention is to play out the clock and then table a mitigation-focused text at the last minute

The developed countries, however, must still elaborate the mitigation element of the 2020 agreement. To avoid discussing the other elements, this is done by proxy through another parallel process, but without it being clear this is the real intention.

This parallel process was established with the Warsaw decision which divided the 2020 negotiations into two parts – one about ‘elements’ and one about ‘national contributions’. While ‘elements’ are put into a non-binding non-paper, ‘contributions’ have been focused on mitigation, and placed into a legal ‘decision’ text.

A cunning plan – for developed countries to avoid paying up

Under the draft text contributions on mitigation are to be compulsory. These must be provided well in advance of the Paris meeting in December 2015. To enable developed countries to avoid contributions towards their other obligations, the ‘scope’ of their contributions is otherwise to be ‘nationally determined’.

They can, in other words, determine to offer no contributions on adaptation, finance, technology or capacity – essentially prejudicing negotiations on the scope of the 2020 agreement.

The likely result of such a process is:

  • Mitigation-focused contributions from developed countries, without contributions on finance, technology or capacity; and
  • Mitigation-focused contributions from developing countries, without contributions on adaptation.

In the absence of comprehensive contributions on adaptation, finance, technology or capacity, developed countries can declare that further work is required on these elements, and so these would not be included in the core 2020 agreement. Mitigation-focused contributions from all Parties can then serve as the basis for a mitigation-focused 2020 agreement.

To appease the United States, the 2020 agreement would merely commit countries to submit their contributions to be listed under the agreement, without having a legal requirement to fulfil those contributions. As by Paris developing countries may have already submitted contributions, it would be harder for their Ministers to find a basis to refuse to sign the new agreement.

The result would be a new mitigation-focused 2020 agreement that is weaker for developed countries than the Kyoto Protocol, and stronger for developing countries, and that excludes meaningful commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity.

So, let’s pack all these things we don’t like up a bureaucratic cul-de-sac

These issues, it will be said, can be addressed outside the 2020 agreement as part of a ‘Paris Package’. Existing Convention commitments on these issues would remain, but their implementation would be sidelined in favour of work under the new 2020 Paris Agreement.

Like the Kyoto Protocol, they would be rendered ineffective, and potentially a dead letter.

While the new agreement would cover the United States, the result for developed countries would be weaker than the Kyoto Protocol which itself was inadequate to spur action. It is also likely fail to include the means of implementation required to mobilize sufficient action in developing countries.

Faced with growing climate impacts, many developing countries are likely to focus their limited resources on adaptation. Weak mitigation pledges would be locked in for another five years, and possibly ten, effectively missing the window for changing the global emissions trajectory before we cross tipping points that set us on track for catastrophic warming.

How can we thwart the rich countries dastardly plan?

The first step is to ensure the ‘elements’ of the 2015 agreement – mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity and transparency – are agreed before the ‘contributions’. This is needed to ensure a comprehensive and balanced 2020 agreement.

Then:

  • Developed countries must put forward contributions on mitigation in the form of QELROs (Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Obligations), as well as on providing finance, technology, capacity and transparency.
  • Developing countries should put forward adaptation contributions, conditional on receiving finance and technology, before putting forward mitigation contributions, to ensure adaptation is clearly part of the 2020 agreement.
  • Developing countries should put forward mitigation contributions – but only once developed countries have committed to put forward substantial finance, technology and capacity contributions.
  • The process should enable party-to-party negotiations to ensure Parties are able to negotiate with each other directly, rather than with Co-Chairs and the Secretariat.

These steps are necessary because, if developing countries commit to mitigation-focused contributions before securing the other elements, the prospects for negotiating a comprehensive and balanced 2020 agreement that addresses the needs and rights of climate-impacted people are substantially diminished.

 

 


 

 

This article was originally published by Friends of the Earth International in the form of a Briefing paper: ‘What type of climate deal in Paris?

 




387616

Three card trick – the rich countries’ plan to evade their climate obligations exposed Updated for 2026





Negotiations towards the post-2020 climate agreement have been running for three years but we are yet to see real text-based negotiations.

This is not an accident, but a part of a broader strategy by those who don’t want a comprehensive and effective climate deal agreed in Paris.

Developed countries want to curb climate change without bearing the burdens and costs. To do this they need to change the climate regime and shift the burdens and costs to developing countries.

Their goal in Paris is a new mitigation-focused 2020 agreement that is weaker for developed countries than the Kyoto Protocol, and stronger for developing countries.

It would exclude meaningful commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity and shift the burden of combating climate change further onto the world’s poor.

Avoiding historical, legal and moral obligations

To achieve this they will end the Kyoto Protocol by inserting 2020 targets that require no reductions (EU), inserting no targets (New Zealand, Japan, Russia), or pulling out altogether (Canada) – effectively rendering the Protocol a dead letter. To this end, they have not fulfilled their Doha commitment to revisit their inadequate 2020 Kyoto targets.

And under the plan, they must also avoid their main obligations under the Climate Convention – on mitigation for developed countries (Art. 4.2), finance (4.3), adaptation (4.4) and technology (4.5).

As these ‘differentiated’ legal obligations will not go away, so they are to be ignored in the pre-2020 period, before being supplanted by a 2020 agreement.

The developed ‘Annex 1’ countries also need to replace the principle of ‘equity’ and ‘common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities’ – because this is the basis of the differentiated legal commitments, and because a common-sense interpretation requires much greater effort from the developed countries.

Ultimately, developed countries want to avoid a legal obligation requiring them to show leadership, so they wish to erase the legal structure of the Annexes that requires more from them.

Instead they propose that under the new agreement countries would ‘self-differentiate’ through their own ‘nationally determined’ contributions. In effect every country would be able to do as much, or as little, as it likes.

Rather than implementing their current commitments, they seek to evade them, and shift them to poorer countries.

How the process is being controlled

This deregulation of the climate regime as it applies to the developed countries would not be voluntarily agreed to by most developing countries, so the negotiating process and documents are being used to achieve this.

To get developing countries to agree to new negotiations the impression was given that the 2020 agreement would cover all elements – mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity and transparency – but without ever actually committing to do so.

Consequently, the Durban Platform said Parties would “work” on the elements – but without clearly saying they would be part of the 2020 agreement. This impression will be maintained until the last minute.

Thus a discussion about ‘elements’ continues with the Co-Chairs collecting everyone’s ideas into a ‘non-paper’ – a non-paper that has no legal status and so can eventually disappear without trace.

The Co-Chairs have tightly managed the process to prevent real party-to-party negotiations. Instead they ‘hear’ the Parties and include what they like of what they hear in the non-paper. The intention is to play out the clock and then table a mitigation-focused text at the last minute

The developed countries, however, must still elaborate the mitigation element of the 2020 agreement. To avoid discussing the other elements, this is done by proxy through another parallel process, but without it being clear this is the real intention.

This parallel process was established with the Warsaw decision which divided the 2020 negotiations into two parts – one about ‘elements’ and one about ‘national contributions’. While ‘elements’ are put into a non-binding non-paper, ‘contributions’ have been focused on mitigation, and placed into a legal ‘decision’ text.

A cunning plan – for developed countries to avoid paying up

Under the draft text contributions on mitigation are to be compulsory. These must be provided well in advance of the Paris meeting in December 2015. To enable developed countries to avoid contributions towards their other obligations, the ‘scope’ of their contributions is otherwise to be ‘nationally determined’.

They can, in other words, determine to offer no contributions on adaptation, finance, technology or capacity – essentially prejudicing negotiations on the scope of the 2020 agreement.

The likely result of such a process is:

  • Mitigation-focused contributions from developed countries, without contributions on finance, technology or capacity; and
  • Mitigation-focused contributions from developing countries, without contributions on adaptation.

In the absence of comprehensive contributions on adaptation, finance, technology or capacity, developed countries can declare that further work is required on these elements, and so these would not be included in the core 2020 agreement. Mitigation-focused contributions from all Parties can then serve as the basis for a mitigation-focused 2020 agreement.

To appease the United States, the 2020 agreement would merely commit countries to submit their contributions to be listed under the agreement, without having a legal requirement to fulfil those contributions. As by Paris developing countries may have already submitted contributions, it would be harder for their Ministers to find a basis to refuse to sign the new agreement.

The result would be a new mitigation-focused 2020 agreement that is weaker for developed countries than the Kyoto Protocol, and stronger for developing countries, and that excludes meaningful commitments on adaptation, finance, technology and capacity.

So, let’s pack all these things we don’t like up a bureaucratic cul-de-sac

These issues, it will be said, can be addressed outside the 2020 agreement as part of a ‘Paris Package’. Existing Convention commitments on these issues would remain, but their implementation would be sidelined in favour of work under the new 2020 Paris Agreement.

Like the Kyoto Protocol, they would be rendered ineffective, and potentially a dead letter.

While the new agreement would cover the United States, the result for developed countries would be weaker than the Kyoto Protocol which itself was inadequate to spur action. It is also likely fail to include the means of implementation required to mobilize sufficient action in developing countries.

Faced with growing climate impacts, many developing countries are likely to focus their limited resources on adaptation. Weak mitigation pledges would be locked in for another five years, and possibly ten, effectively missing the window for changing the global emissions trajectory before we cross tipping points that set us on track for catastrophic warming.

How can we thwart the rich countries dastardly plan?

The first step is to ensure the ‘elements’ of the 2015 agreement – mitigation, adaptation, finance, technology, capacity and transparency – are agreed before the ‘contributions’. This is needed to ensure a comprehensive and balanced 2020 agreement.

Then:

  • Developed countries must put forward contributions on mitigation in the form of QELROs (Quantified Emission Limitation and Reduction Obligations), as well as on providing finance, technology, capacity and transparency.
  • Developing countries should put forward adaptation contributions, conditional on receiving finance and technology, before putting forward mitigation contributions, to ensure adaptation is clearly part of the 2020 agreement.
  • Developing countries should put forward mitigation contributions – but only once developed countries have committed to put forward substantial finance, technology and capacity contributions.
  • The process should enable party-to-party negotiations to ensure Parties are able to negotiate with each other directly, rather than with Co-Chairs and the Secretariat.

These steps are necessary because, if developing countries commit to mitigation-focused contributions before securing the other elements, the prospects for negotiating a comprehensive and balanced 2020 agreement that addresses the needs and rights of climate-impacted people are substantially diminished.

 

 


 

 

This article was originally published by Friends of the Earth International in the form of a Briefing paper: ‘What type of climate deal in Paris?

 




387616

US-China climate deal raises hopes of agreement in 2015 Updated for 2026





An agreement reached in Beijing between US President Barack Obama and China’s President Xi has set a goal for the US to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions by 26%-28% by 2025, relative to 2005 levels.

The two countries also agreed on a target to ensure that the temperature rise from man-made climate change should be limited to 2 degrees C.

China’s commitment lacked specific targets: rather the country, currently the world’s biggest emitter, promised that its emissions would peak in or before 2030. It’s the first such commitment that China has ever made.

As the two countries together produce about 45% of the world’s CO2, agreement between them on climate and their future emissions trajectories has long been considered essential to reaching a meaningful agreement at the 2015 UN climate summit in Paris, to reduce emissions beyond 2020.

“We agreed to make sure that international climate change negotiations will reach an agreement in Paris”, Mr X told reporters.

This is what manifestly failed to take place in Copenhagen in 2009 – with the result that the meeting was an abject failure.

‘Historic’ agreement

Mr Obama described the agreement as “historic”, and promised US support for China’s efforts to “slow, peak and then reverse the course of China’s carbon emissions.”

But he faces a political battle at home with the climate change denying Republican party holding firm majorities in both houses of congress.

Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell complained of “this unrealistic plan, that the president would dump on his successor, would ensure higher utility rates and far fewer jobs.”

However the deal was welcomed by the increasingly influential 350.org, whose Executive Director May Boeve took it as “a sign that President Obama is taking his climate legacy seriously and is willing to stand up to big polluters.”

She added that it should also come as a warning to fossil fuel companies and investors to stop sinking money in ‘unburnable’ carbon, and “strengthens the case for fossil fuel divestment.”

“The US and China reaffirming their commitment to limiting global warming to 2°C should send shockwaves through the financial markets, because the only way to meet that target is by leaving 80% of fossil fuel reserves underground.

“The industry’s business plan is simply incompatible with the pathways laid out today. It’s time to get out of fossil fuels and invest in climate solutions.”

US pledge ‘a drop in the ocean’, says FoE

Dipti Bhatnagar of Friends of the Earth International welcomed China’s commitment. “China is taking the fight against climate change ever more seriously and intends to peak its emissions in next 15 years”, he said.

“We urge China and all nations to urgently switch from emissions-causing dirty energy to community-based renewable energy.” But the US pledges were “just a drop in the ocean”, he insisted. “These figures are very far from being the sea of change we urgently need from the US government.”

His colleague Sara Shaw, FOEI’s Climate Justice and Energy coordinator, added:

“The cuts pledged by President Obama are nowhere near what the US needs to cut if it was serious about preventing runaway climate change. These US voluntary pledges are not legally binding and are not based on science or equity.”

“Industrialised nations, and first of all the world’s largest historical polluter, the US, must urgently make the deepest emission cuts and provide the bulk of the money if countries are to share fairly the responsibility of preventing catastrophic climate change.

“Disgracefully, today’s announcement ignores the fact that developing countries urgently need finance and technology to transform their energy systems and adapt to climate change.”

 




386729

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026





Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 


 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article
was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026





Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 


 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article
was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608

TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence Updated for 2026





Well, thanks to some encouraging ruckus in the last few months, you may actually have heard of TTIP: the anodynely-acronymed ‘Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership’.

In plain English, it’s a massive trade deal between the EU and North America which could affect everything from healthcare choices to government banking regulations to the air we breathe. (And it gets better, TPP is the US-Asia Pacific counterpart.)

Activists and even some politicians have been up in arms about one particularly nasty element of these behemoths, which together will cover almost 50% of global GDP.

That element is the proposed secret courts where, in theory, oil companies could sue governments who try to bring in green-friendly policies, tobacco companies could challenge advertising restrictions, and private healthcare providers could pick apart what’s left of national health services. To name a few.

Don’t mention the deal behind the curtain

But in truth, we just don’t know what TTIP will mean because the negotiations are happening in secret. And the European Commission has made a mockery of its own European Citizens’ Initiative, whereby citizens are supposed to be able to register dissent.

Last September it refused to ‘allow’ that dissent to be registered – a spectacular own goal because, in making it so plain that this supposedly democratic mechanism is toothless, it paved the way for a challenge in the courts – filed this morning in the European Court of Justice.

Stop TTIP – an alliance counting over 250 organisations from across Europe – had tried to use the European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI) to repeal the negotiating mandate for TTIP and not to conclude CETA – the Canada-Europe Trade Agreement.

The ECI was established with the Lisbon Treaty and was regarded as a major improvement of the “democratic life of the European Union”.

Long before requesting registration of the ECI, Stop TTIP asked for a legal pre-check of our petition text. A public servant of the Commission said that it would be no problem to get an answer.

But even after phoning and e-mailing again and again, they failed to deliver an answer. That´s why we decided to submit our request on 15 July.

The Commission’s highly questionable legalities

Then the Commission needed another two months to refuse the registration in a short letter based on two surprising arguments:

The first is that the Commission sees the mandate for an international agreement only as a preparatory act with no legal effect on citizens, and so could not be influenced by an ECI. This interpretation has no basis in the European Treaties. An ECI could request a legal act. There is no need to request a legal act with direct effect on citizens.

The second is even more disturbing. The Commission distinguishes between two forms of ECIs directed at the conclusion of an international agreement of the EU. The first one is to request positively the conclusion of an agreement. This is admissible according to the Commission.

But when an ECI – as in our case – wants to say No to the conclusion of an agreement it is not admissible because it produces no legal effect on citizens. This formalistic approach is more than questionable from a legal point of view.

‘Say want you want but it doesn’t change anything’

Politically, the argument of the Commission has a simple message: international trade agreements should be negotiated without public intervention. It is absolutely unacceptable that, after secret negotiations over which we have no influence, the European Parliament and the public are presented with a fait accompli.

The Commissions’ decision is very much in line with similar acts in the last months. For example, look at the so-called consultation on investor-state-dispute-settlement (ISDS) in TTIP.

The retiring trade Commissioner Karel de Gucht – who denounces some TTIP critics as liars – regarded the coordinated contributions of 150,000 people to the consultation as an “attack” on the system. And shortly after the deadline of the consultation, he proudly declared the CETA negotiations as finalized.

The draft text has a chapter on ISDS almost identical to that of the consultation on ISDS in TTIP. So the Commissions’ maxim seems to be: “you can say want you want but it doesn´t change anything.”

Even national parliaments are excluded

The Commission also wants to avoid the ratification of CETA and TTIP in the national parliaments. It regards the treaties as ‘EU-only’ agreements, only to be ratified in the European Parliament and concluded by the Council. Not only do the people of Europe have no say or ‘right to know’ – nor even do national parliaments.

What we do know, however, are the lessons from recent history. As Saskia Sassen, who has looked at this question for decades, points out: time and again, when global corporations gain rights through free trade deals, citizens lose out – in large part through a negative boomerang effect of job losses and wage stagnation that cheaper goods just don’t compensate for.

We also know that it’s farcical of the European Commission to try and claim that Europe’s citizens cannot have a say in this process because the treaty will have “no legal effect” on citizens. Grist to the mill of UKIP and others – as if they needed it.

So, how will we proceed with the ECI campaign? We will not be ending our protest just because the European Commission wants to gain time with an unfounded and politically motivated rejection.

Democracy arises through social intervention and participation in the political process; it is not something to be granted or denied by Brussels. That is why in early October, we launched an unofficial self-organised European Citizens’ Initiative.

The European Commission is trying to ignore us. We will ignore the European Commission. And this morning we – the Stop TTIP coalition laid down our challenge to the Commissions’ decision at the European Court of Justice.

 


 

Mary Fitzgerald is Editor-in-Chief of openDemocracy. Before joining oD she worked for Avaaz, the global campaigning organisation, and is a former Senior Editor of Prospect Magazine. She has written for the Guardian, Observer, New Statesman and others. Follow her on Twitter @maryftz

Michael Efler is a member of the citizens´ committee of the ECI Stop TTIP.

For more information please visit: Stop TTIP.

To sign the unofficial Citizens Initiative please visit: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:


This article
was originally published on Open Democracy with additional reporting also from Open Democracy.

 

 




386608