For Immediate Release


Case Studies Demonstrate EU Member State Protections Threatened by CETA

WASHINGTON - A series of new case studies published today by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) reveals that the Canada-EU trade deal (Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, or CETA) may strip EU Member States of their ability to regulate in the public interest. Using the examples of mining licensing in Greece, industrial emissions permitting, and pesticide regulations, the briefings detail how CETA’s domestic disciplines and preemption provisions threaten to limit the ability of EU Member States to protect human health and the environment from dangerous industrial processes and toxic chemicals.

Because the European Commission, Council of Ministers, and European Parliament have approved CETA, large portions have provisionally came into force. EU national parliaments must also ratify CETA, however, before it can take full effect. If they fail to do so, the deal is off.

“These briefings aim to equip EU Member States with a more complete understanding of what powers and jurisdiction they could be giving up if they decide to ratify CETA,” says Layla Hughes, Senior Attorney at CIEL. “Under the guise of lowering trade barriers, this deal would lower pesticide regulations to the lowest common denominator, and it would protect corporate profits over all else, including public health and the environment. If Member States are serious about their duties to serve the public interest, they should reject CETA.”


The media landscape is changing fast

Our news team is changing too as we work hard to bring you the news that matters most.

Change is coming. And we've got it covered.

Little discussed and particularly dangerous are CETA’s domestic disciplines, which provide new ways to pressure governments into granting extraction and pollution permits and new legal avenues to challenge them when they are denied.

The case studies provide evidence that CETA would allow Canada and Canadian corporations to challenge licensing procedures that involve any degree of discretion or evolving environmental protection standards, undermine the EU’s precautionary approach, and likely impose serious obstacles on government efforts to protect people and the environment from activities that threaten the integrity of both.

Access the four case studies here.


We want a more open and sharing world.

That's why our content is free. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported.

All of our original content is published under Creative Commons—allowing (and encouraging) our articles to be republished freely anywhere. In addition to the traffic and reach our content generates on our site, the multiplying impact of our work is huge and growing as our articles flourish across the Internet and are republished by other large and small online and print outlets around the world.

Several times a year we run brief campaigns to ask our readers to pitch in—and thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Our 2019 Mid-Year Campaign is underway. Can you help? We can't do it without you.

Since 1989, the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) has worked to strengthen and use international law and institutions to protect the environment, promote human health, and ensure a just and sustainable society.

Share This Article