07 August 2023

Press Release

For immediate release

Lack of public scrutiny breaching Aarhus Convention claim coalition of NGOs

Leading environmental, farming and trade justice organisations have called for urgent reform of the UK Government’s inadequate scrutiny procedures for trade deals. In a joint statement WWF, Greenpeace and others have raised concern about the Government’s response to a complaint under the Aarhus Convention. They have filed a legal reply arguing that the Government is in breach of the Convention because it has not made adequate provision for public consultation on trade deals, which have huge implications for environmental goals.

The coalition say:

“The UK Government’s response to the complaint argues that trade negotiations do not require public participation under the Aarhus Convention and, even if required, their current processes for scrutiny are satisfactory.

“However, these trade deals risk harming the environment at home and globally with no way for MPs or the public to stop this happening. There is very little transparency and very limited public consultation, which the coalition argue are legally required as part of the Aarhus Convention.

“Together, we are urgently calling on the UK Government to allow Parliament and the public a voice on trade agreements now. We must ensure our wild isles in the UK and climate and nature abroad are not sold down the river in exchange for a trade deal.”

NOTES TO EDITORS

The Aarhus Convention requires law with environmental impacts to receive meaningful public consultation while “options are still open” to enable the content of the law to be changed. In 2022 WWF and other NGOs filed a complaint under the Convention arguing current scrutiny arrangements put the UK Government in breach of their international commitments. Far from accepting that their arrangements for public engagement fall short, the government argued that the Aarhus Convention does not apply to free trade agreements.

The Government also disagrees with the proposition that trade agreements generally have environmental impacts. However, the government's own impact assessments of the Australia deal and the recently signed Comprehensive and Progressive Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) state otherwise.

The CPTPP creates significant environmental risks by facilitating food trade with countries with significantly lower environmental standards of production than the UK, e.g. food produced using pesticides which would be banned in the UK, but are in widespread use in Canada and other countries in the CPTPP.

The coalition are now filing a legal reply to the government’s response, and they invite government to concede that:

Free trade agreements do have environmental impacts
There are examples of better practices of public consultation which support the trade negotiation process, such as in the US or the EU
Contrary to the government’s claims that stakeholder groups on trade deals have been relaunched, several working groups have been “under review” since last autumn.

The coalition recommends a significantly enhanced scrutiny process to improve environmental outcomes of trade agreements.

At a minimum this should include:

A published trade policy, setting out the overarching approach to trade, subject to regular reviews by Parliament, and consulted upon with the public.
A parliamentary vote and public consultation on negotiating objectives for individual trade deals.
Greater transparency in the process of negotiations, including publishing draft UK negotiating texts.
Strengthening the role for Select Committees during the process of negotiations.
Providing for public input during the negotiations, as well as strengthened stakeholder engagement
Increased involvement for devolved administrations throughout the process.
A guaranteed debate and decisive vote for Parliament on the final deal

Signatories:

WWF-UK
Trade Justice Movement
Sustain: The alliance for better food and farming
Tenant Farmers’ Association
Green Alliance
Compassion in World Farming
Soil Association
Greenpeace UK