A fairly recent version of the CETA text has been leaked. The document date is August 1, 2014. No doubt there is some legal "scrubbing" still to do, and perhaps some actual negotiating as well, but this text seems pretty advanced, and thus ready for blogging. I'm going to do a few posts in the coming days about specific provisions, not in any particular order, just flipping through and seeing what looks interesting. I'll start with one on water rights. Here's the CETA provision (from numbered page 14):
Article X.08: Rights and Obligations Relating to Water
1. The Parties recognize that water in its natural state, such as water in lakes, rivers, reservoirs, aquifers and water basins, is not a good or a product and therefore, except for Chapter XX – Trade and Environment and Chapter XX – Sustainable Development, is not subject to the terms of this Agreement.
2. Each Party has the right to protect and preserve its natural water resources and nothing in this Agreement obliges a Party to permit the commercial use of water for any purpose, including its withdrawal, extraction or diversion for export in bulk.
3. Where a Party permits the commercial use of a specific water source, it shall do so in a
manner consistent with the Agreement.
Protection of water resources has been an issue raised by trade critics for a long time now. But are there any actual threats to water resources from trade agreements? What has people so worked up? Is this one of those areas where some law firm wrote a memo once suggesting a possible challenge to a ban on development of water resources, and ever since there has been a perceived threat?
Generally speaking, I would think that, under all the existing trade rules I'm aware of, a government could declare a particular water resource off limits for commercial development, without violating its trade obligations.
On the other hand, if you are going to allow development, but not allow any exports, you need to have a better reason than simply favoring domestic producers by giving them cheaper inputs. Export bans are probmematic, as several recent cases against China show.
So does the CETA language deal with what may or may not be an actual problem? I'm not really sure that it does much of anything. Paragraph 2 says governments are not "obliged" to permit "the commercial use of water." But that doesn't change the current situation under trade agreements, does it? What existing provisions would do this?
Paragraph 3 then says that if you do allow commercial use, you have to act consistently with the agreement, which again seems to reflect the current situation.
And then there's paragraph 1, which says that water in its "natural state" is not a "good or a product", and thus not subject to the agreement. Does that really mean anything? Once you start turning that "natural state" water into usable water, it is a good/product, and thus subject to the agreement.
Any further thoughts from people who have followed this issue more closely than I have?
