The TPPA recognises the connection between conservation and trade. It requires parties to "adopt, maintain, and implement" the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), which aims to prevent international trade in endangered wild animals and plants. However, rather than prohibiting illegal harvest and trade in wild plants and animals, it talks about the importance of combating these activities. It's a light-handed approach, with non-committal words. There is discretion for members to "exercise administrative, investigatory and enforcement discretion" in dealing with suspected violations of CITES.
While recognising the importance of indigenous environmental knowledge and management practices, the TPPA also refers to the importance of facilitating access to genetic resources. But it is unclear how it aligns with the 1993 Mataatua Declaration on Cultural and Intellectual Property Rights of Indigenous Peoples, which recognises the rights of indigenous peoples to give consent to companies, governments and other public and private institutions wishing to undertake experiments or commercialisation of any biogenetic resources.
Although the TPPA addresses marine capture fisheries, strangely, it excludes aquaculture. It notes the importance of the fisheries sector to the economic development of countries, including their sustainable management. But, again, there is discretion and a lack of binding rules (such as banning of commercial whaling and shark fin trade).
The TPPA requires the removal of subsidies for fishing of overfished species but, as pointed out by the US Center for International Environmental Law, "the lack of binding enforcement measures significantly undermines efforts to promote long-term marine conservation."
Overall, the TPPA's chapter on the environment is weak. Many provisions are framed as "best endeavour efforts" which can be easily neglected. Strong and binding rules are needed to restore, protect and enhance marine, aquatic and terrestrial biodiversity. It is likely that the TPPA's rules will be too feeble to have an impact and it remains unclear how they will be enforced.
The USA's environmental organisation, the Sierra Club, argues that the chapter is "essentially meaningless".
Among its more highly publicised and contentious elements are the Investor State Dispute Settlement provisions, which allow international companies to sue governments for making decisions that threaten their profits.
Recently, Canada and Germany's governments have been sued for placing restrictions on coal burning, and temporarily banning hydraulic fracturing.
These are more than just ominous signs that the TPPA may end up undermining government efforts to protect the environment.
Promoting sustainable development requires some hard choices to ensure the economic growth goal of the TPPA does not compromise the environment. The agreement provides little reassurance in this respect.
As independent analysis by Simon Terry, executive director for the Sustainability Council of New Zealand demonstrates, the environment is a "significant casualty" under the TPPA.
- Christine Cheyne is Associate Professor, Resource and Environmental Planning programme at Massey University.
- Views expressed here are the writer's opinion and not the newspaper's. Email: editor@hbtoday.co.nz
