22 Amendments of Judith SARGENTINI related to 2014/2228(INI)
Amendment 19 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph B
Paragraph B
B. Notes that, although the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) negotiation mandate is now public, its wordingAsks the Commission to bear in mind that TTIP implications will go far beyond the bilateral relationships and will undoubtedly impact on developing countries, given the size and scope of the transatlantic economy, requests the Commission to prepare a thorough social and environmental impact assessment, once the provisions of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) are clearer, of its likely impact on low income countries and the future sustainable development goals, as the wording of the negotiating mandate is so general that itTTIP´s content and possible spillover effects on developing countries are still not known; calls for a thorough analysis, when TTIP provisions are clearer, of its likely impact on low income countries and the future sustainable development goalsrequests equally the Commission to make all negotiating documents public in order to ensure full transparency;
Amendment 29 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 1
Paragraph 1
1. Believes that the agreement should guarantee full respect for EU fundamental rights standards through the inclusion of a human rights clause as a standard part of EU trade agreements with third countries; considers that the European Parliament would not be able to accept any TTIP which does not contain such a clause
Amendment 33 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C
Paragraph C
C. Is of the opinionAsks the Commission to consider that the effect of the TTIP on developing countries will vary depending on their economic structure and current trade relations; sees, howevas well as to consider, the potential serious risk of diminished market access and resulting trade and investment diversion for some countries;
Amendment 36 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph C a (new)
Paragraph C a (new)
Ca. Asks the Commission to bear in mind that the highly concentrated nature of exports from Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) implies that the erosion of preferences in a small set of specific product categories (textiles, clothing and specific agricultural products such as fish, bananas and sugar) can have important negative consequences for these countries; in particular, asks the Commission to consider the risks of locking-in developing countries in Sub-Saharan Africa into supplier of raw materials, while marginalising them further from global value chains;
Amendment 41 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph D
Paragraph D
D. StressesAsks the Commission to take into account that the majority of developing countries benefit from some degree of tariff preferences from the EU and the USA, with margins likely to be significantly affected by the TTIP; uanderlines to bear in mind that the adaptation to new sets of norms and standards is not necessarily negative, but that it is essential to alleviate then such a trade agreement would not automatically lead to improved access of developing countries to the EU and US market, since the definition of high standards would entail as a side-effect that developing countries would either have higher cost ofs to compliance (especially for SMEs)y with or to lock exporters of developing countries out from the transatlantic market altogether;
Amendment 50 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph D a (new)
Paragraph D a (new)
Da. Asks the Commission to bear in mind that TTIP represents a potential threat to developing countries' interests, in a context where TTIP consists of a pioneering effort to strengthen and expand multilateral rules (WTO-Plus) or to generate standards and norms in new areas beyond the current system (WTO- extra);
Amendment 51 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph D a (new)
Paragraph D a (new)
Da. Asks the Commission not to use bilateral trade agreements as a way of securing trade concessions from developing countries that go even beyond the requirements of WTO rules, especially in areas ranging from intellectual property rights and public procurement to investment, where no agreement has been reached so far at the multilateral level, as the enactment of WTO-Plus provisions may involve for developing countries not to use existing flexibility or public interests safeguards, and consequently jeopardise the fulfilment of the UN Declaration on the Right to Development as adopted in 1986;
Amendment 52 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph D b (new)
Paragraph D b (new)
Db. Considering that EU and US trade policies already discriminate against labour-intensive manufacturing products and agricultural exports of developing countries, requests the Commission to consider the risks of potential codification of trade preference scheme within TTIP in terms of country and product coverage and rules of origin as it may further erode current preferential trade arrangements with developing countries; for instance, it would be particular disastrous for Sub- Saharan African countries, for which tight restrictions on access to the US market already exist (as in the case of sugar, tobacco, peanuts...); accordingly, requests the Commission to ensure that any attempt to harmonise current trade schemes for low-income African countries will improve their prospects;
Amendment 56 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Recalls that personal data can be transferred outside the Union only if the provisions on third-country transfers in EU data protection laws are respected; recalls that the Commission can only negotiate on provisions which touch upon the flow of personal data provided that the full application of EU data protection rules is guaranteed; is seriously concerned about the TiSA draft texta US provided draft text on e-commerce in the frame of the TiSA negotiations, which would completely undermine all EU rules and safeguards for the transfer of personal data to third countries; calls on the Commission to make it clear to the US side that the draft chapter on e-commerce proposed by US negotiators in the 7th TTIP negotiation round will not be accepted as a base for negotiations, should it contain similar conditions to the US draft chapter on e-commerce in the TiSA negotiations;
Amendment 59 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 a (new)
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. asks the Commission to ensure that negotiations on a chapter on e-commerce and on a chapter on telecommunications in TTIP be put on hold until the ongoing negotiations on Safe Harbor and the Data Protection Umbrella Agreement are successfully concluded;
Amendment 61 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 4 b (new)
Paragraph 4 b (new)
4b. asks the Commission to ensure that negotiations on a chapter on financial service regulation, and specifically the freedom of processing personal data in connection with financial transactions, be put on hold until the ongoing negotiations on Safe Harbour and the Data Protection Umbrella Agreement are successfully concluded;
Amendment 62 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E a (new)
Paragraph E a (new)
Ea. Urges the EU to refrain from attempting to define new WTO+ disciplines on export restrictions in the area of energy and access to raw materials in TTIP, given that EU's previous attempt to outlaw the use of export taxes on raw materials at the WTO was fiercely opposed by developing countries, as such a trade tool is seen as a potential leverage to their economic development (i.a. it enables to raise public revenues, diversify production, control price fluctuations, as well as to protect environment);
Amendment 63 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E b (new)
Paragraph E b (new)
Eb. Asks the Commission to take into account that WTO-TRIPS Council adopted in 2013 a decision granting LDCs an eight-year extension of the transition period, (deferring the time within which LDCs to implement the TRIPS Agreement); accordingly, urges the EU not to circumvent the WTO current regime, as it would hamper developing countries to benefit from "Special and Differentiated Treatment", be it in terms of access to medicine or technology transfer, which are of primary importance for developing countries;
Amendment 64 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E c (new)
Paragraph E c (new)
Ec. In particular, requests the Commission to take into account that TTIP could amongst others offer new opportunities for the pharmaceutical industry lobby to demand further intellectual property protections and lengthen the period of market exclusivity for its products; and to bear in mind that such move is particularly worrisome for developing countries since it would entail longer monopolies, less generic competition and limits on pricing policies, and therefore damage the public health system of developing countries;
Amendment 65 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E d (new)
Paragraph E d (new)
Ed. Asks the Commission to ensure that the provisions of the TTIP, including the investment protection, do not limit the right of the EU or the Member States to adopt and enforce, in accordance with their respective competences, measures necessary to pursue legitimate public policy objectives, including development policies;
Amendment 66 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E f (new)
Paragraph E f (new)
Ef. As the TTIP negotiation mandate does not mention development policy as one of the legitimate public policy objective; asks the Commission to ensure that development policy is explicitly mentioned in the context of the Investment Protection section of the TTIP;
Amendment 67 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph E g (new)
Paragraph E g (new)
E g. Asks the Commission to bear in mind that the investment protection chapter of the Agreement covers also intellectual property rights, and consequently, taking into consideration the crucial importance of access to medicine and technology transfer to developing countries, asks the Commission to ensure that the Agreement does not require the EU or the Member States to introduce TRIPS-plus provisions, such as patent term extensions or data exclusivity, to any bilateral or multilateral agreement;
Amendment 70 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 6
Paragraph 6
6. Recalls that decisions on legal conflicts about fundamental rights may only be made by competent ordinary courts; is concerned that provisions on investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) may prevent access to justice and undermine democracy; is of the firm opinion that a possible TTIP agreement should not contain any ISDS mechanism, as the given level of investment protection in the EU and in the US is fully sufficient to guarantee legal security;
Amendment 78 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph F a (new)
Paragraph F a (new)
Fa. Opposes to the introduction of the Investor-to-State Settlement (ISDS) Mechanism, especially in a context where it is increasingly controversial world-wide, primarily owing to the spread and growing number of investor-State dispute settlement (ISDS) cases, whereby investors happened to challenge core public policies that had allegedly negatively affected their business prospects;
Amendment 79 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph F a (new)
Paragraph F a (new)
Fa. In a context where TTIP constitutes another opportunity to set new global standards on liberalisation of public procurement, asks the Commission to bear in mind that developing countries have constantly refused to sign the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA); therefore, urges the EU to refrain from imposing the introduction of the reciprocity principle, as it will amongst others hamper the development of infant industries and processing in developing countries;
Amendment 82 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph F b (new)
Paragraph F b (new)
Fb. Urges the EU to refrain from negotiating investment provisions that focus on investment protection as the sole aim of the Treaty; requests the Commission to acknowledge that developing countries shall retain the right to regulate investment, both to discriminate in favour of investors that support the country's development and to ensure that there are obligations and duties on all investors, including foreign, in place so that labour, environmental, human rights and other standards are respected; more broadly, urges the EU to design an investment policy which reflects UNCTAD's comprehensive Investment Policy Framework for Sustainable Development (IPFSD), so as to ensure that the Treaty does not interfere with, but instead contributes to countries' sustainable development strategies;
Amendment 84 #
Draft opinion
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Recalls the need for transparency in the negotiations throughout the entire process; reminds the Commission of its obligation to keep Parliament fully informed on an immediate basis at all stages of the negotiation, according to TFEU Art 218.10 which, in a recent ruling, the ECJ confirmed as being of statutory character, to keep Parliament fully informed on an immediate basis at all stages of the negotiations; urges the Commission to work towards an agreement with the US Administration regarding the access of all Parliamentarians to the consolidated negotiation texts; insists on access for the public to relevant negotiation documents from all parties, with the exception of those which are to be classified with clear justification on a case-by-case basis, in line with Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 30 May 2001 regarding public access to European Parliament, Council and Commission documents2 [1]. __________________ 2 OJ L 145, 31.5.2001, p. 43.