Tag Archives: trade

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

Lawsuit served on Commission for blocking TTIP challenge Updated for 2026





This morning the Stop TTIP coalition, consisting of over 300 civil society groups from across Europe, have filed a lawsuit against the European Commission at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

The lawsuit challenges a decision made by the Commission to block a ‘European Citizen’s Initiative’ (ECI) on the controversial EU-USA trade deal known as TTIP, and a similar deal with Canada (CETA).

In September 2014 the European Commission was accused of “stifling citizens’ voices” last September after it rejected a proposal to hold a ‘European Citizens’ Initiative’ against the trade deals – on legally dubious grounds that betrayed a profound anti-democratic bias in the organisation.

The Initiative, which had been launched by trade unions, social justice campaigns, human rights groups and consumer watchdogs, if successful would have forced the Commission to review its policy on the deals and to hold a hearing in the European parliament.

People are being told – don’t interfere, until it’s too late

Nick Dearden, the director of the World Development Movement, one of the groups involved in the lawsuit said: “It’s disgraceful that the Commission is prepared to use such dirty tricks to attempt to stifle the million people across Europe who have voiced urgent concerns about TTIP and the way it is being negotiated.

“These people are rightly worried about the impact this far-reaching trade deal would have on vital public services, and hard-fought for legislation protecting labour rights and the environment.”

Michael Efler, a representative of the ECI’s citizens’ committee said: “We are not only appealing for the sake of the Stop TTIP ECI, but also for future European Citizens’ Initiatives. When it comes to the negotiation of international treaties, the European Commission wants to exclude citizens.

“While they are being negotiated, people are told not to interfere and when final contracts are put on the table, it’s too late. The Commission’s legal position effectively prevents any future ECIs on international agreements.”

Second initiative gains 850,000 signatures in a month

Despite the rejection of the ECI, campaign groups and trade unions launched a second self-organised, unofficial petition in early October, which has already gathered more than 864,000 signatures in just over a month. It reads:

“We call on the institutions of the European Union and its member states to stop the negotiations with the USA on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and not to ratify the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada.”

So far the Commission has continued to deny those voices a hearing, in favour of continuing to negotiate in secret. Around 50 people held a demonstration today at the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg against both the trade deals and the Commission’s rejection of the ECI.

Blanche Weber, a member of the ECI’s citizens committee who took part in the protest said: “The gap between European politics and people is to be overcome – according to the rhetoric of politicians. However, the discrepancy between this spin and actual politics is a disgrace.

“Brussels’ arrogance towards Europe’s citizens is unacceptable! We will continue to defend ourselves against TTIP and CETA – also for the sake of European democracy.”

 


 

More information: Stop TTIP.

Sign the Citizens Initiative: Stop TTIP.

Also on The Ecologist:TTIP – challenging the European Commission’s unlawful intransigence‘ by Mary Fitzgerald & Michael Efler.

 

 




386605

The exotic pet trade is a global evil that must be stopped Updated for 2026





For three decades I have worked as a scientist traversing swamps, deserts and forests tracking wildlife hunters as they scour to catch diverse animals for their sacks and boxes. From this moment on, the meter of destruction is already running.

Next, the hunters’ swag is readied for a new and commonly shortened life in captivity as part of the growing international market for unusual pets.

Unfortunately, despite shuffling tons of trade permits – many of which can be obtained illegally – few, if any, civil servants, CITES (the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora) managers or other so-called ‘competent authorities’ ever physically enter the hard end of the wildlife trade to witness, let alone control, the destruction.

CITES aims to ” … ensure that international trade in endangered species of plants and animals is sustainable.” Not only are CITES’ aims and achievements somewhat fanciful, but in my experience CITES is often a mere tool for wildlife traders.

Investigate the sources of trade and you will find no controllers, no scientific observers, just exploiters. Anyway, 25% of trade is thought illegal – hardly well under control. Safe ‘sustainable’ trade is mostly a myth.

Lengthy scientific articles now regularly chronicle the harm inherent to trading wild animals as pets. Just one review this year published in the prestigious journal Conservation Biology concluded:

“International trade in exotic pets is an important and increasing driver of biodiversity loss and often compromises the standards required for good animal welfare; one-fifth of recent wildlife trade reports were driven by demand for pets or animals for use in entertainment; unsustainable harvest of wild animals for the pet trade has already led to population decline and collapse for many species; animal welfare is compromised to some extent at all stages of the exotic pet trade; legality of trade does not guarantee its sustainability; many of the species traded as pets are threatened.”

Trade thrives, controls fail.

Poor welfare worsens conservation and ecological threats

Little, if anything, that happens in the exotic pet industry is irrelevant to ecology. For instance, poor (more accurately disastrous) animal welfare affects species conservation and thence ecology because high mortality rates prompt raised compensatory collection and repeat purchases – expensive vivariums need occupants!

According to WWF and an article in The Ecologist, mortality for wild-caught marine fish is approximately 80% pre-sale. Mortality rates on pet fish ‘farms’ are unclear, but the end result is shocking anyway.

The UK alone imports around 40 million pet fish annually (marine and freshwater) and almost all die prematurely within a year. Reptile trading is another example where destructive collection, breeding and storage lead to an industry-standard presale mortality of 70% within just six.

Die-off between pet retailer and the home is 81% in a year. The aquarium and reptile industry manifests nearly the same lethality as a slaughterhouse.

Survivors are often troublesome to their keepers and released into the local habitat where they may become invasive. At least 51 types of released reptile and amphibian live wild around London alone. Controlling European invasives costs over €12.5 billion annually and the bill is rising fast.

Every imported or released exotic animal is arguably a Trojan horse harbouring a potential suite of novel pathogens that could impact on human health or agricultural livestock.

At least 70 pet-linked human diseases exist as well as a growing raft of threats to industry such as avian influenza to poultry and the degenerative illness ‘heartwater’ – which could rapidly wipe out cattle farming.

Indigenous wildlife is not immune to introduced disease, as demonstrated by the chytridiomycosis pandemic linked to released pets, which is rampaging through wild amphibian populations.

The irony!

Make no mistake, the international pet trade involves stealing other ecosystems’ wildlife, stuffing it into containers, and shipping it around the world to face a likely stress-laden and foreshortened unnatural life in a small cage in someone’s lounge.

One cannot help but wonder how the British or any other nation’s public would react to viewing one of their favourite indigenous species – be it barn owl, bank vole, or red squirrel – ripped from our own countryside, bundled into bags, crammed into carriers and sent worldwide where they will unlikely arrive ship-shape.

Fortunately, witnessing such destruction in Britain is improbable, because our own wildlife is very well protected. In the UK, and elsewhere, one must commonly obtain a local authority licence to fish at a river, and caught fish are typically promptly returned to their natural habitat.

The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 determines that no British birds can be legally caught and sold or kept as pets, and both UK and European law leaves very little room for any wild animal to be treated as a pet commodity.

Not only does the UK government protect its indigenous wildlife, but it is also opposed even to the concept of capturing and selling it as ‘would-be exotic pets’ to other countries – it states: “We are not aware that unprotected native wild animals are routinely being captured from the wild and sold abroad as pets and would discourage any such activity.”

One cannot, however, ignore the tragic irony that whilst the UK takes such good care of its own house and even opposes the mere principle of siphoning off its wildlife, it continues to be one of the major consumers of other nations’ biodiversity and consequently erodes ecosystems worldwide.

Conclusions

Trading in exotic pets is an unethical and archaic concept surviving extinction not by merit but by fortuitous commercial biases inherent to the policies of government departments.

Governments do not entertain guidance on trade policy from drug dealers or people traffickers, yet they accommodate the vested and harmful interests of pet dealers and wildlife traffickers.

In particular, it is the obfuscation, obstruction and incompetence of trade-mollycoddling civil servants that stifles both the solid evidential arguments of the scientific community as well as the sincere efforts of the seemingly increasing number of ‘eco-aware’ parliamentarians.

The exotic pet industry is a pernicious force incompatible with good ecological, animal welfare and public health practices. It hides in plain sight rooted behind the sanitized façade of pet stores and the front doors of private homes, quietly facilitated by trade-permissive legislation.

Long overdue is the need to haul this industry’s modern-day dark-age habits to face the cleansing light of scientific scrutiny, neo-political good will, and common sense morals.

Evidential and ethical arguments overwhelmingly justify a complete ban on trading exotic animals as pets. Already available, however, are so-named ‘positive lists’ – which turn the historical ‘free trade’ concept around and stipulate ‘no trade until proven safe’.

This approach offers a pro-active and not reactive opportunity to favour wildlife over the deepening pockets of pet peddlers. But so long as the exotic pet trade continues, its maleficence will persist to the detriment of animals, humans and the world in which we live.

 


 

Clifford Warwick PGDipMedSci CBiol CSci EurProBiol FOCAE FSB is a Consultant Biologist & Medical Scientist.

For more information please contact the Animal Protection Agency.

Sources with links

[1] http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cosbi.12240/abstract

Bush, ER., Baker, S.E. and Macdonald, D.W. (2013) Global Trade in Exotic Pets 2006-2012. Conservation Biology, Volume 28, No. 3, 663-676 (Nijman & Shepherd 2009; Lyons & Natusch 2011).

[2] http://news.mongabay.com/2013/1022-millar-aquarium-trade-deaths.html

98% of marine fish headed for the aquarium trade die within a year in the Philippines.

[3] http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2523460/the_dark_side_of_hawaiis_aquarium_trade.html

The dark side of Hawaii’s aquarium trade.

[4] http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10888705.2014.918511#.VFu43CjCGQI

Ashley, S., Brown, S., Ledford, J., Martin, J., Nash, A E., Terry, A., Tristan, T. & Warwick, C. (2014) Morbidity and mortality of invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles and mammals at a major exotic companion animal wholesaler. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 17:1-14. DOI:10.1080/10888705.2014.918511.

[5] http://www.cieh.org/jehr/default.aspx?id=41594

Warwick, C., Arena, P.C., Steedman, C. and Jessop, M. (2012) A review of captive exotic animal-linked zoonoses. Journal of Environmental Health Research, 12:9-24

[6] https://www.savethefrogs.com/threats/frog-legs/images/Schloegel-2009-US-Markets.pdf

Magnitude of the US trade in amphibians and presence of Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis and ranavirus infection in imported North American bullfrogs (Rana catesbeiana) Schloegel, L.M., Picco, A.M., Marm Kilpatrick, A., Davies, A.J., Hyatt, A.D, Daszak, P. Biological Conservation 142 (2009) 1420-1426.

Sources without links

Langton, T. E. S., Atkins, W., & Herbert, C. (2011). On the distribution, ecology and management of non-native reptiles and amphibians in the London area. Part 1. Distribution and predator/prey impacts. The London Naturalist, 90, 83-156.

Shine, C., Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Essl, F., Gollasch, S., Rabitsch, W., ten Brink, P. (2010). Assessment to support continued development of the EU strategy to combat invasive alien species. Final Report for the European Commission. Brussels, Belgium: Institute for European Environmental Policy.

Toland, E, Warwick, C., & Arena, P.C. (2012) The exotic pet trade: pet hate. The Biologist 59(3);14-18.

 




386587

TTIP: Cameron begs Brussels to give away more British sovereignty Updated for 2026





Prime Ministers blame Brussels for, well, everything, But trade ministers have just written to EU President Juncker insisting he removes more of their national sovereignty through secret corporate courts.

Conflict rages in Brussels between those seeking to salvage the embattled EU/US trade pact (TTIP) by dropping ISDS as its most controversial aspect, and those who still want to push through the whole project in the face of mounting public opposition.

The ‘investor-state dispute settlement system’ (ISDS) would allow investors and corporations to sue governments in private international tribunals for any policy they deem “unfair” or which could affect their “legitimate profit expectations”. I have written about it here.

It emerged last week that trade ministers from 14 EU member states have written to Juncker, telling him to make sure TTIP does include ISDS, and reminding him that he has a mandate from member states to include that.

‘Please take our national powers away and give them to US corporations’

The ministers include UK’s Lord Livingston, alongside trade ministers from the Czech Republic, Cyprus, Estonia, Denmark, Finland, Croatia, Malta, Lithuania, Ireland, Sweden, Spain, Portugal, and Latvia.

They wrote: “One of the issues that has attracted criticism is investment protection. The Commission is currently analysing the results of a public consultation on this issue and we look forward to the Commission’s response.

“The consultation was an important step in ensuring that we strike the correct balance to ensure that governments retain their full freedom to regulate, but not in a way that discriminates against foreign firms … The Council mandate is clear in its inclusion of investor protection mechanisms in the TTIP negotiations; we need to work together on how best to do so.”

In reality, the negotiating mandate is ambiguous. It is in favour of ISDS and investment protection more generally, but also states:

“the inclusion of investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement (ISDS) will depend on whether a satisfactory solution, meeting the EU interests concerning the issues covered by paragraph 23, is achieved. The matter shall also be considered in view of the final balance of the Agreement.”

Juncker stands for British democracy against UK Government

Juncker thus seems correct when he pointed out in his Strasbourg speech:

“The negotiating mandate foresees a number of conditions that have to be respected by such a regime as well as an assessment of its relationship with domestic courts. There is thus no obligation in this regard: the mandate leaves it open and serves as a guide.”

Juncker seems to be defending European member state sovereignty against the trade fundamentalists who would hand it over to corporations – for now.

On 22 October in his speech before the European Parliament vote confirming him as President, Juncker said:

“I took note of the intense debates around investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) in the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiations.

“Let me once again state my position clearly, that I had set out on 15 July in front of this House and that you will find in my Political Guidelines: My Commission will not accept that the jurisdiction of courts in the EU Member States be limited by special regimes for investor-to-state disputes. The rule of law and the principle of equality before the law must also apply in this context.

“The negotiating mandate foresees a number of conditions that have to be respected by such a regime as well as an assessment of its relationship with domestic courts. There is thus no obligation in this regard: the mandate leaves it open and serves as a guide.”

The truth is shrouded under layers of secrecy

The position of Juncker’s new trade commissioner, Swedish Liberal Malmström, is unclear.

At her confirmation hearing she gave no clear indication where she stands on ISDS in TTIP. She said that the EU would want to include ISDS in future agreements with other parties, but added that possibly it could be excluded altogether from TTIP, and emphasized that the system needs to be “reformed”.

Malmström also claimed that there was no need to renegotiate ISDS in the equally controversial Canada free-trade agreement called CETA, since without it the deal could fall apart.

Juncker has just taken away Malmström’s power to negotiate this matter alone, giving new Commission First Vice President Frans Timmermans, a Dutch Social Democrat, oversight of the ISDS issue:

“I have asked Frans Timmermans, in his role as First Vice-President in charge of the Rule of Law and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, to advise me on the matter. There will be no investor-to-state dispute clause in TTIP if Frans does not agree with it too.”

But this conflict with potentially far-reaching implications takes place largely behind closed doors. If it were not for the massive public protests across Europe, the negotiation mandate, agreed secretly between the Commission and the governments of the member states in June 2013, would still be secret.

The public, even the parliaments would know nothing. The US has even prohibited the Commission from giving the US negotiation documents to the member states.

Where is Cameron’s mandate?

Cameron, Merkel, Hollande claim they defend our interests, yet it is difficult to imagine how they can do that when they are prohibited from reading what the US is putting on the table.

And how dare our 14 trade ministers write to Juncker clamoring for ISDS to be kept in TTIP?

Not one of them had a mandate from their public or parliament to write ISDS into the secret negotiation mandate last year. Not one of them told their public or parliament that they did. I am sure not one of them had a mandate from their parliaments or was asked by their public to write such a letter now.

Were it not for some courageous whistleblower, we would not even know that they did.

It is particularly embarrassing for the Cypriot minister that his signature became public. As laid out in ‘Profiting from Crisis‘, Cyprus is being sued by dubious banks in investor-state tribunals for enormous amounts of ‘compensation’ for their speculative investments, based on other existing investment protection treaties with ISDS.

A Greek-listed private equity-style investor, Marfin Investment Group, which was involved in a series of questionable lending practices, is seeking €823 million in compensation for their lost investments after Cyprus had to nationalise the Laiki Bank as part of an EU debt restructuring agreement.

The people are sovereign – but only if we make it so!

‘EU trade policy’ is formulated and carried out in a democracy vacuum. It stinks – and not only in Brussels. It stinks particularly in the capitals of the member states.

It is so easy for trade ministers to push privately for Brussels to adopt policies that never would be agreed in an open, democratic process.

It is so easy for ministers and prime ministers to then point the finger at the Commission in Brussels when voters get angry.

It is time for the voters to tell them who is the sovereign in a democratic country.

 


 

Jurgen Maier is Director of the German NGO Forum Environment & Development, a network monitoring international negotiations and currently coordinating Germany’s campaign against TTIP.

This article was originally published on Open Democracy.

 




385284

Help us reach the TTIP tipping point! Updated for 2026





In secret the EU and the US are negotiating a new trade deal that would involve a major transfer of power from the public to unaccountable corporations.

The Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) is heralded by its advocates as a ‘free trade’ deal that will strengthen economies on both sides of the Atlantic.

But TTIP has little to do with trade – tariffs between the EU and US are already minimal. Instead its provisions are aimed at undermining regulation that protects workers, consumers and the environment and granting unprecedented legal powers to corporations.

Despite a virtual media blackout on the deal, however, the movement against this corporate power grab is growing.

Corporations able to sue governments for profits not made

One of the most alarming and undemocratic aspect of TTIP is the Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows companies to sue governments for making policy changes that could hurt their future profits.

Looking at the effect of ISDS in similar cases around the world suggests this could have significant implications for the ability of the state to legislate in the public interest:

  1. Egypt is currently being sued by Veolia for raising the minimum wage and stands to lose $80million as a consequence.
  2. Last year, Slovakia was forced to pay over €22million to Dutch insurer Achmea when it attempted to introduce public health insurance.
  3. Argentina was successfully sued for over $1billion by water and electricity companies (including EDF) for freezing utility prices.
  4. Canada is being sued for $500 million by big American drug company, Eli Lilly, who claims a Canadian court’s decision to reject a patent on one of their drugs (because it doesn’t do what it’s supposed to do) is depriving them of ‘expected future profits’.

ISDS, then, could act as a major deterrent to any future UK government considering whether to renationalise the parts of the NHS that has been sold off to big business, tackle the spiralling energy prices of the Big Six energy companies in the UK, or ban fracking.

Harmonisation? Or a race to the regulatory bottom?

But the corporate power grab does not stop there. TTIP is also set to ‘harmonise’ regulation between the EU and the US, which threatens a regulatory ‘race to the bottom’. This could lead to:

  • the undermining of worker’s rights such as the right to collective bargaining and the right to holiday;
  • the undoing of regulations to protect the environment, giving harmful industries like fracking an easier ride;
  • the removal of food safety regulation to allow new GM crops, hormone pumped beef and chlorine washed chicken in Europe.

The primary argument that politicians, bureaucrats and business leaders have made in TTIP’s favour is that it will bring jobs and growth.

Indeed, a study commissioned by the EU on the effects of TTIP has shown that the trade deal would lead to between one and two million at least 1 million (and up to 2 million) job losses across the EU and the US.

This is consistent with the effect of previous ‘free trade’ agreements in other parts of the world such as the North American Free Trade Agreement between Mexico, the USA and Canada. Just as it has been the result of previous free trade agreements in other parts of the world.

Promised economic benefits ‘hugely overblown’

With regards to growth, Lord Livingston’s promise of £10 billion pounds extra growth to the UK per year has been strongly criticised by economists such as Dr Gabriel Siles-Brugge for being inaccurate and hugely overblown.

Lately British politicians have taken to more extreme measures to try and combat (rather than addressing) the growing public discontent with TTIP. Lord Livingston has accused campaigners of being “anti-American” even though the US campaign against TTIP also is growing strong.

And last week George Osborne attempted to rally big business to publicly defend the free market ideology against the mass of civil society organisations and trade unions that are opposing it. When politicians start to beg corporations for help to defend their policies, it is a strong sign they are in trouble.

But the movement against TTIP and other undemocratic free trade agreements is growing. In July there was a day of action in the UK in which thousands people took part action in 20 places in the UK

A global day of action against TTIP – today!

And today, this Saturday 11 October, a much expanded mobilisation is taking place – there’ll be over 300 protests across Europe involving tens of thousands of people.

Stretching from the Canary Islands to Scotland, Finland and Greece, actions will be taking place not just in big cities, but also in small towns and rural areas.

In the UK people will be rallying in Parliament Square, doing flash mobs in Edinburgh, engaging in ‘no TTIP tours’ of Bristol and Leeds or involved one of the many other actions.

With this scale of mobilisation, it is not difficult to see why the political establishment are worried. Working with people around the UK to fight TTIP I’ve seen NHS workers join forces with small local businesses and anti-fracking activists come together with trade unionists to campaign.

If we work together we can do much more than defeating TTIP, we can fight for a new democratic and fair economic system free from corporate control.

Join me and tens of thousands of other activists to say no to TTIP.

 


 

Action: information on events, campaign resources.

Petitions

38 Degrees, UK:Dear Vince Cable and the UK TTIP team, please fix or scrap the Transatlantic Trade Investment Partnership‘.

Change.org, EU: European Commission, ‘Do Not Sign Up to TTIP’

Sumofus, US, EU:Promise to protect our democracies from corporate lawsuits, and stop the secret TPP and TTIP trade pacts‘.

Morten Thaysen is the digital communications assistant at WDM. He is also an activist with Fuel Poverty Action and has previously worked for two years as a campaigns assistant for Action Aid Denmark. He has an MA in Anthropology of Development from SOAS.

This article was originally published by Open Democracy under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0  licence.

Creative Commons License

 




385284

Collectors’ trade threatens ‘Holy Grail’ of the reptile world Updated for 2026





An unusual and little-known monitor lizard from Borneo that has captured the interest of reptile collectors is emerging as the latest victim of the global illicit wildlife trade, an investigative report by TRAFFIC warns.

Lanthanotus borneensis or the Earless Monitor Lizard had long remained virtually unknown to the outside world due to its subterranean habits and limited distribution in north-western Borneo.

Unknown, that is, until recently gaining attention from unscrupulous reptile collectors.

Until now, it was only the subject of scientific interest

Earless Monitor Lizards have no external ear opening, a cylindrical lengthened body covered in scaly tubercles, small limbs, a prehensile tail, a forked tongue, and small eyes with the lower eyelid covered by translucent ‘windows’. As such it is placed in its own monospecific family Lanthanotidae.

The small, orange-brown lizard with beaded skin was once primarily of interest to scientists because of its unique adaptations for living below ground, and there were few instances of private ownership reported during the last 30 years.

However, there has been a sudden emergence in the trade of this species over the past two years.

Through its research, TRAFFIC detected international trade in Earless Monitor Lizards that has largely been carried out online from 2013 onwards. Specific instances mentioning the species were documented on forums and social networking sites in Japan, the Ukraine, France, Germany and the Czech Republic.

‘A significant offtake of the animals from the wild’

The study found specimens being offered for sale online across Europe and received intelligence about a significant offtake of the animals from the wild.

This was corroborated by discussions in online forums on the availability of the animals for sale, where there were frequent references to the lizard as being the “Holy Grail” of the reptile collecting world.

“Our research highlights the importance of the Internet and social media in the trafficking of species in high demand by specialist collectors: the reach online traders have is both instant and global”, said Sarah Stoner, Senior Wildlife Crime Analyst at TRAFFIC and co-author of the report.

Keeping an ear to the ground: Monitoring the trade in earless monitor lizards, illustrates the international scope of the trade and the need for international enforcement efforts.

Legally protected – but no restrictions on international trade

The Earless Monitor Lizard is legally protected in its native range countries of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia. The sudden, growing international interest in the species, however, raises concern given the absence of international trade regulations that would criminalize any such activity.

Currently, this is the only species of monitor lizard not protected from over exploitation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

“For zoologists and conservationists working in Asia, the Earless Monitor Lizard is truly a mythical creature and something we have read about in the classical scientific literature”, said Dr. Vincent Nijman, Professor of Anthropology at Oxford Brookes University and author of the report.

“The last detailed observations were made on individuals caught in Malaysian Borneo and date from the 1960s. It is very sad indeed that the next time the Earless Monitor Lizard resurfaces after an absence of almost 50 years it is individuals being illegally traded internationally.”

CITES listing desperately needed

TRAFFIC recommends that the Governments of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia list Earless Monitor Lizards in Appendix III of CITES as an immediate interim action to allow proper monitoring and regulation of trade in this species.

Appendix III of the Convention requires that trade must be conducted only with the appropriate paperwork, which allows countries to track and assess levels of international trade.

The campaign group also recommends the species be eventually listed in Appendix I of CITES, and that enforcement agencies in end-use countries increase their vigilance and efforts to crack down on the availability of these stolen reptiles.

An Appendix I of the Convention listing would mean all commercial international trade in this species would become illegal.

 


 

The report: Keeping an ear to the ground: Monitoring the trade in earless monitor lizards

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature. TRAFFIC is a strategic alliance of IUCN and WWF.

 

 




383962

Collectors’ trade threatens ‘Holy Grail’ of the reptile world Updated for 2026





An unusual and little-known monitor lizard from Borneo that has captured the interest of reptile collectors is emerging as the latest victim of the global illicit wildlife trade, an investigative report by TRAFFIC warns.

Lanthanotus borneensis or the Earless Monitor Lizard had long remained virtually unknown to the outside world due to its subterranean habits and limited distribution in north-western Borneo.

Unknown, that is, until recently gaining attention from unscrupulous reptile collectors.

Until now, it was only the subject of scientific interest

Earless Monitor Lizards have no external ear opening, a cylindrical lengthened body covered in scaly tubercles, small limbs, a prehensile tail, a forked tongue, and small eyes with the lower eyelid covered by translucent ‘windows’. As such it is placed in its own monospecific family Lanthanotidae.

The small, orange-brown lizard with beaded skin was once primarily of interest to scientists because of its unique adaptations for living below ground, and there were few instances of private ownership reported during the last 30 years.

However, there has been a sudden emergence in the trade of this species over the past two years.

Through its research, TRAFFIC detected international trade in Earless Monitor Lizards that has largely been carried out online from 2013 onwards. Specific instances mentioning the species were documented on forums and social networking sites in Japan, the Ukraine, France, Germany and the Czech Republic.

‘A significant offtake of the animals from the wild’

The study found specimens being offered for sale online across Europe and received intelligence about a significant offtake of the animals from the wild.

This was corroborated by discussions in online forums on the availability of the animals for sale, where there were frequent references to the lizard as being the “Holy Grail” of the reptile collecting world.

“Our research highlights the importance of the Internet and social media in the trafficking of species in high demand by specialist collectors: the reach online traders have is both instant and global”, said Sarah Stoner, Senior Wildlife Crime Analyst at TRAFFIC and co-author of the report.

Keeping an ear to the ground: Monitoring the trade in earless monitor lizards, illustrates the international scope of the trade and the need for international enforcement efforts.

Legally protected – but no restrictions on international trade

The Earless Monitor Lizard is legally protected in its native range countries of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia. The sudden, growing international interest in the species, however, raises concern given the absence of international trade regulations that would criminalize any such activity.

Currently, this is the only species of monitor lizard not protected from over exploitation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

“For zoologists and conservationists working in Asia, the Earless Monitor Lizard is truly a mythical creature and something we have read about in the classical scientific literature”, said Dr. Vincent Nijman, Professor of Anthropology at Oxford Brookes University and author of the report.

“The last detailed observations were made on individuals caught in Malaysian Borneo and date from the 1960s. It is very sad indeed that the next time the Earless Monitor Lizard resurfaces after an absence of almost 50 years it is individuals being illegally traded internationally.”

CITES listing desperately needed

TRAFFIC recommends that the Governments of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia list Earless Monitor Lizards in Appendix III of CITES as an immediate interim action to allow proper monitoring and regulation of trade in this species.

Appendix III of the Convention requires that trade must be conducted only with the appropriate paperwork, which allows countries to track and assess levels of international trade.

The campaign group also recommends the species be eventually listed in Appendix I of CITES, and that enforcement agencies in end-use countries increase their vigilance and efforts to crack down on the availability of these stolen reptiles.

An Appendix I of the Convention listing would mean all commercial international trade in this species would become illegal.

 


 

The report: Keeping an ear to the ground: Monitoring the trade in earless monitor lizards

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature. TRAFFIC is a strategic alliance of IUCN and WWF.

 

 




383962

Collectors’ trade threatens ‘Holy Grail’ of the reptile world Updated for 2026





An unusual and little-known monitor lizard from Borneo that has captured the interest of reptile collectors is emerging as the latest victim of the global illicit wildlife trade, an investigative report by TRAFFIC warns.

Lanthanotus borneensis or the Earless Monitor Lizard had long remained virtually unknown to the outside world due to its subterranean habits and limited distribution in north-western Borneo.

Unknown, that is, until recently gaining attention from unscrupulous reptile collectors.

Until now, it was only the subject of scientific interest

Earless Monitor Lizards have no external ear opening, a cylindrical lengthened body covered in scaly tubercles, small limbs, a prehensile tail, a forked tongue, and small eyes with the lower eyelid covered by translucent ‘windows’. As such it is placed in its own monospecific family Lanthanotidae.

The small, orange-brown lizard with beaded skin was once primarily of interest to scientists because of its unique adaptations for living below ground, and there were few instances of private ownership reported during the last 30 years.

However, there has been a sudden emergence in the trade of this species over the past two years.

Through its research, TRAFFIC detected international trade in Earless Monitor Lizards that has largely been carried out online from 2013 onwards. Specific instances mentioning the species were documented on forums and social networking sites in Japan, the Ukraine, France, Germany and the Czech Republic.

‘A significant offtake of the animals from the wild’

The study found specimens being offered for sale online across Europe and received intelligence about a significant offtake of the animals from the wild.

This was corroborated by discussions in online forums on the availability of the animals for sale, where there were frequent references to the lizard as being the “Holy Grail” of the reptile collecting world.

“Our research highlights the importance of the Internet and social media in the trafficking of species in high demand by specialist collectors: the reach online traders have is both instant and global”, said Sarah Stoner, Senior Wildlife Crime Analyst at TRAFFIC and co-author of the report.

Keeping an ear to the ground: Monitoring the trade in earless monitor lizards, illustrates the international scope of the trade and the need for international enforcement efforts.

Legally protected – but no restrictions on international trade

The Earless Monitor Lizard is legally protected in its native range countries of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia. The sudden, growing international interest in the species, however, raises concern given the absence of international trade regulations that would criminalize any such activity.

Currently, this is the only species of monitor lizard not protected from over exploitation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

“For zoologists and conservationists working in Asia, the Earless Monitor Lizard is truly a mythical creature and something we have read about in the classical scientific literature”, said Dr. Vincent Nijman, Professor of Anthropology at Oxford Brookes University and author of the report.

“The last detailed observations were made on individuals caught in Malaysian Borneo and date from the 1960s. It is very sad indeed that the next time the Earless Monitor Lizard resurfaces after an absence of almost 50 years it is individuals being illegally traded internationally.”

CITES listing desperately needed

TRAFFIC recommends that the Governments of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia list Earless Monitor Lizards in Appendix III of CITES as an immediate interim action to allow proper monitoring and regulation of trade in this species.

Appendix III of the Convention requires that trade must be conducted only with the appropriate paperwork, which allows countries to track and assess levels of international trade.

The campaign group also recommends the species be eventually listed in Appendix I of CITES, and that enforcement agencies in end-use countries increase their vigilance and efforts to crack down on the availability of these stolen reptiles.

An Appendix I of the Convention listing would mean all commercial international trade in this species would become illegal.

 


 

The report: Keeping an ear to the ground: Monitoring the trade in earless monitor lizards

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature. TRAFFIC is a strategic alliance of IUCN and WWF.

 

 




383962

Collectors’ trade threatens ‘Holy Grail’ of the reptile world Updated for 2026





An unusual and little-known monitor lizard from Borneo that has captured the interest of reptile collectors is emerging as the latest victim of the global illicit wildlife trade, an investigative report by TRAFFIC warns.

Lanthanotus borneensis or the Earless Monitor Lizard had long remained virtually unknown to the outside world due to its subterranean habits and limited distribution in north-western Borneo.

Unknown, that is, until recently gaining attention from unscrupulous reptile collectors.

Until now, it was only the subject of scientific interest

Earless Monitor Lizards have no external ear opening, a cylindrical lengthened body covered in scaly tubercles, small limbs, a prehensile tail, a forked tongue, and small eyes with the lower eyelid covered by translucent ‘windows’. As such it is placed in its own monospecific family Lanthanotidae.

The small, orange-brown lizard with beaded skin was once primarily of interest to scientists because of its unique adaptations for living below ground, and there were few instances of private ownership reported during the last 30 years.

However, there has been a sudden emergence in the trade of this species over the past two years.

Through its research, TRAFFIC detected international trade in Earless Monitor Lizards that has largely been carried out online from 2013 onwards. Specific instances mentioning the species were documented on forums and social networking sites in Japan, the Ukraine, France, Germany and the Czech Republic.

‘A significant offtake of the animals from the wild’

The study found specimens being offered for sale online across Europe and received intelligence about a significant offtake of the animals from the wild.

This was corroborated by discussions in online forums on the availability of the animals for sale, where there were frequent references to the lizard as being the “Holy Grail” of the reptile collecting world.

“Our research highlights the importance of the Internet and social media in the trafficking of species in high demand by specialist collectors: the reach online traders have is both instant and global”, said Sarah Stoner, Senior Wildlife Crime Analyst at TRAFFIC and co-author of the report.

Keeping an ear to the ground: Monitoring the trade in earless monitor lizards, illustrates the international scope of the trade and the need for international enforcement efforts.

Legally protected – but no restrictions on international trade

The Earless Monitor Lizard is legally protected in its native range countries of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia. The sudden, growing international interest in the species, however, raises concern given the absence of international trade regulations that would criminalize any such activity.

Currently, this is the only species of monitor lizard not protected from over exploitation under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES).

“For zoologists and conservationists working in Asia, the Earless Monitor Lizard is truly a mythical creature and something we have read about in the classical scientific literature”, said Dr. Vincent Nijman, Professor of Anthropology at Oxford Brookes University and author of the report.

“The last detailed observations were made on individuals caught in Malaysian Borneo and date from the 1960s. It is very sad indeed that the next time the Earless Monitor Lizard resurfaces after an absence of almost 50 years it is individuals being illegally traded internationally.”

CITES listing desperately needed

TRAFFIC recommends that the Governments of Brunei Darussalam, Indonesia and Malaysia list Earless Monitor Lizards in Appendix III of CITES as an immediate interim action to allow proper monitoring and regulation of trade in this species.

Appendix III of the Convention requires that trade must be conducted only with the appropriate paperwork, which allows countries to track and assess levels of international trade.

The campaign group also recommends the species be eventually listed in Appendix I of CITES, and that enforcement agencies in end-use countries increase their vigilance and efforts to crack down on the availability of these stolen reptiles.

An Appendix I of the Convention listing would mean all commercial international trade in this species would become illegal.

 


 

The report: Keeping an ear to the ground: Monitoring the trade in earless monitor lizards

TRAFFIC, the wildlife trade monitoring network, works to ensure that trade in wild plants and animals is not a threat to the conservation of nature. TRAFFIC is a strategic alliance of IUCN and WWF.

 

 




383962