FTA talks with the EU need to be monitored closely

FTA talks with the EU need to be monitored closely

The negotiations for a region-wide EU-Asean free trade agreement (FTA) were launched in 2007 under the mantle of the EU's new partnerships with Asia.

A protester joins a rally against the Thai-EU free trade negotiations which are taking place in Chiang Mai this week. Critics of the trade deal fear it will limit Thai people’s access to medicines and food and damage the environment and rural livelihoods. TAWATCHAI KEMGUMNERD

A year later the world was hit by a global economic crisis, the effects of which continue to reverberate, not least in the EU.

In 2010, the EU set aside the regional approach to FTA negotiations with Asean because it failed to deliver the level of ambition the EU was hoping for. The EU has since secured an FTA with Singapore and is pursuing negotiations with Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand.

These bilateral FTA talks draw from the same EU-Asean mandate, which means that the agreements that would be forged out of these talks within the region would be comparable if not similar to one another in terms of the process of negotiations, the substantive elements and the level of ambition.

The EU-Asean network has been monitoring these bilateral negotiations in the region through national level campaigns initiated by social movements and civil society organisations including FTA Watch in Thailand. These people's campaigns have raised serious concerns about the possible threats posed by the FTA on people's health and access to medicines, the right to food, the environment and rural livelihoods.

There is likewise a big concern over the erosion of policy space that these agreements could cause, stifling the ability of governments to come up with effectively policies in the name of the public interest.

What the EU is pushing in its FTA talks with Asean are new-generation free trade and investment agreements. Like the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), the EU FTAs are aiming for higher standards of liberalisation not just in trade in goods and services, but in intellectual property rights, investment and investor protection.

Our network is watching closely the negotiations for an EU-Thailand FTA, not just on the possible implications for Thailand but for the rest of the region.

Two major concerns that stand out because of the possible grave impact on people's rights and the erosion of policy space are issues relating to the chapters on intellectual property rights and investment.

Opposition to the EU FTAs in Asean has galvanised around these two issues. As EU and Thai negotiators go to the second round of talks for an EU-Thailand FTA, here are the main concerns: the negotiations would include provisions on intellectual property rights that are beyond current WTO commitments on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (Trips), would undermine Trips flexibilities, and would threaten people's access to quality but affordable medicines. Thailand is no stranger to the use of these flexibilities and championing the cause of public health. Its efforts to issue compulsory licences for HIV-Aids and cancer drugs are well documented. The Thai negotiators should heed the warnings and stand firm on this commitment for public health.

Similar warnings have come from the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the UNAids programme, which have come out strongly against these Trips-plus provisions in FTAs and their impact on public health. The report concludes, "to retain the benefits of Trips agreement flexibilities, countries, at minimum, should avoid entering into FTAs that contain Trips-plus obligations that can impact on pharmaceutical prices or availability".

Another area of concern is the investment chapter in FTAs being pushed by the EU which would afford greater protection and rights for corporations, including the right to sue governments over certain policies and regulations. We are deeply concerned over the agenda of the EU to include investor-to-state dispute mechanisms as an integral part of the investment chapter in its FTAs with Asean countries.

Aside from the multi-million-dollar claims of corporations, litigating these cases already constitutes a big burden on taxpayers. Furthermore, an ambitious investment chapter could further erode the policy space needed by governments to regulate investments and safeguard and protect the public interest as it pursues its development objectives.


Joseph Purugganan is coordinator of the EU-Asean FTA Campaign Network.

Do you like the content of this article?
COMMENT