Upload
mia-miles
View
225
Download
3
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
TPPA and Impact on Agriculture, Food Security & Environment
BRIEFING TO PAKATAN RAKYAT MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
"Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and Its Pervasive, Across-the-Board Implications for Malaysia"
26 June 2013
Lim Li Ching, Third World Network
Impact on agriculture and food security
TPPA and subsidies Subsidies cannot be negotiated under
FTAs, only under the WTO (as subsidies are not partner specific)
Therefore, countries like the US and Japan, which highly subsidize their farmers, will continue their agriculture subsidies
TPPA and zero tariffs The TPPA will aim for reduction of tariffs to
zero, including for agricultural products Most developing countries have higher
tariffs compared to developed countries, so have to reduce more as tariffs become zero/negligible
US likely to require removal of 100% of tariffs on its agricultural products, unless listed and agreed to as an exception
US FTA threat to rice farmers in Malaysia Malaysian position in failed US-Malaysia FTA
negotiations was to exclude rice At the time, not much import of US rice into
Malaysia But, US demand for rice tariffs to be reduced
to zero (over a period of time) Malaysia had tariff on imported rice of 40%
US rice highly subsidized, with export price below cost of production
Predicted effect of FTAs on agriculture Colombia: Farmers could experience overall
57% reduction in income and 35% reduction in employment among workers in 9 major agricultural sectors, if US proposals were accepted
South Korea: With US FTA, total annual production amount of local agricultural industries would drop US$ 1-2 billion/ year, and “it would be inevitable for some 70,000 to 140,000 people currently engaged in farming businesses to lose their jobs”
Experiences of Mexico under NAFTA (1994) US grains are sold with dumping margins of
>25% because of its subsidies E.g. rice is subsidised to an amount equivalent
to 72% of cost of production Before NAFTA, Mexico was self-sufficient in
maize and bean production Imports of subsidised maize from USA have
nearly tripled under NAFTA Every year, nearly 3 million tons of harvested
Mexican maize is left to rot as it can’t compete with cheap US maize
Experiences of Mexico under NAFTA (1994) Genetically modified maize from the US has
contaminated traditional varieties 99% soybeans, 80% of rice now imported,
displacing local production Imports rose over five times for soybean, wheat,
poultry and beef Nearly 3 million Mexican farmers have left the land
since NAFTA began Result: increased emigration, rural poverty and
illegal drug production Mexican countryside has lost 1.3 million jobs since
NAFTA, mainly of small and subsistence farmers
Impact of other chapters Services chapter
Liberalizing financial services could mean less access for small farmers to affordable credit
Intellectual property chapter UPOV 1991 and impact on access to seeds
Government procurement chapter Could open government purchasing of food (e.g. for
military/public schools or hospitals etc.) to be supplied with farm products from TPP countries, to our farmers’ disadvantage
Impact of other chapters Investment chapter
Could open more land to foreign ownership Dispute settlement chapter
Makes almost all TPPA chapters enforceable via state-to-state dispute settlement
When a case is lost at the international tribunal for violating the TPPA, then tariffs can be raised on exports
Impact on environment
Impact of investment chapter Requirement to allow investors from other TPPA
countries to invest in all sectors unless listed and agreed to as an exception Foreign ownership of land e.g. Peru-USFTA
Requirement to treat investors fairly and equitably Interpreted as standstill on regulation
Expropriation provision Environmental laws, regulations and policies could
be found to be expropriation
Impact of investment chapter Proposal to restrict technology transfer
requirements (unless exceptions agreed) Impact on National Policy on Climate Change,
National Policy on Environment, National Green Technology Policy
Investor-state dispute settlement 70% of the over USD719m paid out under
USFTAs and BITs are from challenges to natural resource and environment policies
Case examples Vattenfall vs. Germany: Swedish power company
sued German government for €1.4 billion plus interest after its coal-fired electricity plant in Hamburg-Moorburg was made to comply with stricter environmental regulations. German government settled in 2010 by reducing its environmental requirements.
Vattenfall also sued Germany for US$4.8 billion after the government decided to phase out nuclear energy in Germany following the Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan.
Ethyl vs. Canada: Canada was sued for its ban on a polluting chemical. It settled by reversing the ban, paying US$13 million to the company and issuing a statement for use in advertising that “current scientific information” did not demonstrate the chemical’s toxicity.
SD Myers vs. Canada: Canada was successfully sued because of its temporary ban on PCBs (to assess obligations under the Basel Convention). Canada paid the investor US$5 million for the lost profits it would have made during the 16-mth ban.
Case examples
Case examples Metalclad vs. Mexico: Mexico was successfully sued for
failure to allow a toxic waste dump in an area with unique biodiversity and water that could have been polluted. Mexican govt had to pay the foreign investor US$15 million; tried to recoup cost from local authority.
What about Lynas? Licence given subject to a number of conditions, including compliance with safety provisions of the Atomic Energy Licensing Act 1984 and Environmental Quality Act 1974. If Lynas’ licence is in future revoked for failure to comply with these, or other, Malaysian laws, may lead to a claim of expropriation of its licence and any future profit expected to make.
Impact of other chapters Intellectual property chapter
More technologies could be patented, and patents would last longer – impact on access to environmentally sound tech
Patents on plants and animals, UPOV ‘91 TBT and SPS chapters
May impose additional restrictions including the information that can be required by government regarding GM food
Impact of other chapters Services chapter
May require services regulations at all levels of government (including local government) are based on objective and transparent criteria (rather than environmental ones) and that these are not more burdensome than necessary
May restrict ability of federal, state and local governments to use licensing fees (including for use of natural resources) to raise revenue/cross-subsidise or discourage unwanted activities in the sectors liberalized
Impacts of other chapters Regulatory coherence chapter Exceptions chapter
Based on past USFTAs, the US will not allow the general environment exception to apply to the investment or IP chapters
Dispute settlement chapter Preamble
What about the environment chapter? Most studies on the environmental effects
of NAFTA provide negative or uncertain conclusions regarding benefits: can’t solve significant environmental problems; failure to strengthen domestic environmental laws
Does not counter the problems for the environment that other chapters, including the investment chapter, will bring
Thank you!
www.twn.my
www.ftamalaysia.org