Civil Society Meetings in EU Free Trade Agreements: The Purposes Unravelled

Die wertbasierte Handelspolitik der EU: eine Analyse der Kapitel zu Handel und Nachhaltigkeit von CETA

“…Furthermore, the parties shall discuss any disputes in meetings with the committee of trade and sustainable development to arrive at a common interest. The provisions in these TSD chapters are designed in a very flexible and cautious way, in that specific commitments to changing domestic laws are not present and there is much flexibility and discretion in action left to each government without significant penalties for non-compliance (Orbie et al 2016).…”

“…This forum is to be convened once a year unless both parties agree against it and should be made up of representatives from civil society organisations in each territory and represent various and balanced interests (Puccio/ Binder 2017). There are the domestic advisory groups (DAGs) established under provisions 23.8 and 24.13 who are called upon for opinions and advice on the parties' actions within the context of the three chapters (EC 2016a;Orbie et al 2016). The DAGs are made up of domestic civil society representatives from business, labour and environment for each state.…”

“…The DAGs are made up of domestic civil society representatives from business, labour and environment for each state. Members of this are then selected to the transnational civil society forum (mentioned above), who then meet annually to review the implementation of the SD provisions (Orbie et al 2016).…”

“…This mechanism thus opens up the trade agreement to civil society involvement and offers the opportunity for varying interests to be involved in its implementation. This can help to strengthen the democratic legitimacy of the agreement and EU trade policy; however, the selection of the members of the DAG and forum has been criticised for having little transparency (Orbie et al 2016).…”

Promoting sustainable development or legitimising free trade? Civil society mechanisms in EU trade agreements

“…A first cluster of criticism concerns the organisation of the mechanisms, which are viewed as too improvised. 8 It has also been suggested that the domestic mechanisms should convene more frequently, for instance through videoconferencing, to ensure substantial progress and continuity. 9 Another avenue recommended to ensure continuity and better organisation is creating a coordinating mechanism such as a secretariat.…”