Activities of Benoît BITEAU related to 2021/2176(INI)
Opinions (1)
OPINION on the future of EU international investment policy
Amendments (13)
Amendment 1 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Underlines that investment can and should have a positive impact on sustainable development; recalls that investments, especially in extractive industries, logging, tourism and agribusiness operations can have huge impacts on local communities, including indigenous people; Notes with concern the asymmetry of international investment agreements (IIA), which give rights to foreign investors without putting the host state under any obligations in terms ofereby only investors can launch investment cases against States, while governments, workers and affected communities are unable to take transnational corporations that fail to respect human rights, or labour and environmental law;s to arbitration; in particular, regrets that IIAs usually include the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS), which provides protection for investors but not for states or citizens; highlights that this pro-investor imbalance can constrain the ability of governments to regulate in the public interest; believes that a binding and enforceable UN Treaty on Business and Human Rights could address such imbalance; accordingly, stresses the importance of the EU being actively involved in the process of the Open-ended intergovernmental working group on transnational corporations and other business enterprises with respect to human rights (OEIGWG) and to uphold the primacy of human rights over trade interests;
Amendment 10 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Deplores the asymmetry of this private justice system, which gives foreign investors the right to bring claims against governments, including on measures taken to protect public health, the environment and public interest, with no need to exhaust domestic legal remedies first; highlights the risks posed by the high costs of ISDS claims for the public finance of developing countries; stresses that the costs of investment lawsuits have the potential to bring the public budgets of most African countries to breaking point;
Amendment 14 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 a (new)
Paragraph 2 a (new)
2 a. Notes with concern that between 2013 and 2018, there has been an unprecedented boom of claims against African countries;stresses that while European investors initiated the majority of the lawsuits against African countries, accounting for 70% of all cases, African States have been the main losers in investment arbitration cases;highlights that the mere threat of significant compensation paid to corporations with taxpayers’ money may induce the Host state to reconsider desirable policymaking[1]; [1] Sources: “ISDS in numbers. Impacts of Investment Arbitration against African States”, Transnational Institute (October 2019)
Amendment 15 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 2 b (new)
Paragraph 2 b (new)
2 b. Stresses the need to shift the focus away from a system that prioritizes investor protection to one that emphasizes the advancement of national and global development goals through sustainable investment;
Amendment 21 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Calls for the EU to align its investment policy with the European Green Deal and, the European Climate Law1 ; _________________ 1 OJ L 243, 9.7.2021, p. 1. and the new taxonomy;
Amendment 24 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 3 a (new)
Paragraph 3 a (new)
3 a. Urges the commission to exclude fossil fuels investment as well as investments in other activities that are significantly harmful for the environment and human rights from treaty protections, in particular from investor-states arbitration mechanisms;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
Amendment 37 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Stresses that there is no evidence that ISDS has promoted Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in developing countries; Believes that governments should not sign new investment protection treaties that include the ISDS mechanism and should remove it from the existing ones; in particular, believes that investment trade agreements should require local legal remedies to be exhausted first before the foreign investor can resort to an arbitral tribunal, as in the case of human rights system;
Amendment 45 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Stresses that the Investment Court System designed by the EU does not protect governments’ right to regulate, as it still enables foreign investors operating in the EU and EU-based investors operating abroad to circumvent national legal systems and file lawsuits in international tribunals against public interest measures, through expansive interpretation of provisions such as “direct and indirect expropriation” and “fair and equitable treatment”, which enable investors to challenge legitimate regulatory changes to protect health, the environment, economic stability and other public interests;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6 a (new)
Paragraph 6 a (new)
6 a. Takes note of the ongoing discussions within the working group of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) on dispute settlement and of the EU proposal to create a Multilateral Investment Court as a permanent body to enforce investor rights; highlights the risk to strengthen, in this way, the ISDS system, as it would further formalise rights for foreign corporations that domestic investors would not have; stresses the need to conduct comprehensive audits of investment protection treaties that include ISDS mechanism;
Amendment 54 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Urges the EU to refrain from including a digital clause in investment trade agreements that would restricRecalls that developing countries need to preserve and expand their policy space to undertake digital industrialisation; urges the EU to refrain from including a digital clause in investment trade agreements ,such as cross-border data transfer, prohibition on processing data locally, elimination of customs duties on digital products, non- disclosure of the source code of software and related algorithms, removal of prior authorisation; non-discrimination of digital products, that would restrict the ability to regulate, redistribute the profits, improve public services or limit the digital industrialisation strategy of developing countries;
Amendment 58 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 a (new)
Paragraph 7 a (new)
7 a. Stresses that investment agreement should encourage technology transfer linked to FDI, including for digital technologies;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7 b (new)
Paragraph 7 b (new)
7 b. Recalls the WTO moratorium on electronic transmissions (ET) since 1998; stresses that zero custom duties imply a significant loss of tariff revenue for developing countries; accordingly, insists that digital clauses in investment agreements should not ban the collection of taxes on electronic transmissions;