Conclusions and recommendations
1. The EU and US have
some environmental standards which deliver similar safeguards,
but there are others which differ—a result in part of different
approaches to standard-setting. The EU's stronger focus on applying
the precautionary principle in setting regulations should not
be weakened as a result of efforts under TTIP to align regulatory
standards. (Paragraph 16)
2. Where 'mutual recognition'
of environmental standards is used to smooth trade between the
EU and US, it will be important that this is applied only in cases
where the 'safety equivalence' test is genuinely satisfied. Where
it is not, such as for chemicals, existing regulation should be
maintained. Failing to keep to such a course risks an unacceptable
'race to the bottom'. (Paragraph 17)
3. There is a range
of views about whether the proposed EU/US Regulatory Co-operation
Council will help or hinder environmental protections in future;
a result of a lack of detailed information and transparency on
the proposals. The Government should work with other EU states
to push for environmental groups and agencies to be represented
on the Council, to bolster its ability to fully weigh environmental
issues alongside the economic and trade considerations that might
otherwise take precedence. (Paragraph 20)
4. EU states must
retain their 'right to regulate', but a TTIP treaty text that
enshrines such a safeguard will be meaningless if the prospect
of ISDS litigation produces a chilling effect on future regulation-setting.
A compelling case for the inclusion of an ISDS in TTIP has not
yet been made, and there are unresolved doubts about how well
international arbitration courts would operate. If there is to
be an ISDS, the parties will need to agree a robustly framed one
which prevents unwarranted litigation, adopting the lessons from
the recently negotiated ISDS provisions in the EU/Canada trade
treaty, to circumscribe the terms on which litigation could be
initiated against policies to improve environmental or health
protections. (Paragraph 29)
5. The potential impact
of TTIP on developing countries needs to be addressed as a central
consideration of the TTIP negotiations. Developing countries should
be invited to take part in the negotiations now, to allow their
concerns to be fully addressed. The impact of TTIP should be assessed
for each country affected. But financial compensation to those
countries is not the solution: instead, UK and EU Aid should be
targetted to help them to be able to continue to compete for their
existing export markets. (Paragraph 34)
6. TTIP potentially
presents risks for environmental safeguards, as we have described
in this report, but there is also scope for these to be satisfactorily
addressed. That depends on the detail of the deal that is struck.
At the current stage in the negotiations there is not the transparency
needed to be able to reach a view on whether such risks will be
dealt with. EU member states, including the UK, will need to be
more closely involved in the negotiations from now on, and engage
in turn with environmental groups and agencies, to ensure that
environmental issues are adequately considered. The next Government
should ensure that the public and the House are given a full and
timely opportunity to scrutinise the draft terms of any TTIP settlement
before it is a done deal. (Paragraph 38)
| 
