Taking care of business: Tony Abbott and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

After the Australian election, United States President Barack Obama called newly elected Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott to congratulate him upon his victory and encourage him to work co-operatively on the regional trade deal the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Aaron's army fights the Trans-Pacific Partnership

In light of the death of internet activist Aaron Swartz, there is a need to reconsider intellectual property enforcement standards in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. The 16th round of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations are taking place in Singapore until March 13. There have been concerns that the Intellectual Property Chapter would “ratchet up IP enforcement at the expense of digital rights”. Maira Sutton of the Electronic Frontier Foundation fears that “the Trans-Pacific Partnership could turn Internet Service Providers into copyright cops, prompt ever-higher criminal and civil penalties for sharing content, and expand protections for Digital Rights Management”. The case of Aaron Swartz highlights the need for a reconsideration of punitive and excessive intellectual property enforcement provisions in trade agreements.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership: A Halloween horror-show

The latest draft of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, released by WikiLeaks, is a literal Mickey Mouse agreement, writes Dr Matthew Rimmer, associate professor at ANU college of law.

Creative destruction: The Trans-Pacific Partnership, jobs, and labor rights

In the United States, there has been a fierce debate over the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), and its impact upon jobs, employment, and labor rights and standards. This sweeping trade agreement spans the Pacific Rim, and includes such countries as Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Mexico, Peru, Chile, Malaysia, Singapore, Vietnam, Brunei, and Japan. There has been concern over the secrecy surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership — particularly in respect of labor rights.

Open for litigation: Australia, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

On the 28th May 2014, a petition signed by 1.8 million people worldwide was delivered to the Australian Parliament to protest against the radical secrecy surrounding the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

The high price of drug patents: Australia, patent law, pharmaceutical drugs and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

This week, the secrecy surrounding an independent Australian report on patent law and pharmaceutical drugs has been lifted, and the work has been published to great acclaim...

Lock the gate: Fracking, investor-state dispute settlement, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

There has been much debate about the relationship between international trade, the environment, biodiversity protection, and climate change.The Obama Administration has pushed such issues into sharp relief, with its advocacy for sweeping international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. There has been much public concern about the impact of the mega-trade deals upon the protection of the environment. In particular, there has been a debate about whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership will promote dirty fracking. Will the Trans-Pacific Partnership transform the Pacific Rim into a Gasland?There has been a particular focus upon investor-state dispute settlement being used by unconventional mining companies. Investor-state dispute settlement is a mechanism which enables foreign investors to seek compensation from national governments at international arbitration tribunals. In her prescient 2009 book, The Expropriation of Environmental Governance, Kyla Tienhaara foresaw the rise of investor-state dispute resolution of environmental matters. She observed:'Over the last decade there has been an explosive increase of cases investment arbitration. This is significant in terms of not only the number of disputes that have arisen and the number of states that have been involved, but also the novel types of dispute that have emerged. Rather than solely involving straightforward incidences of nationalization or breach of contract, modern disputes often revolve around public policy measures and implicate sensitive issues such as access to drinking water, development on sacred indigenous sites and the protection of biodiversity.'In her study, Kyla Tienhaara observed that investment agreements, foreign investment contracts and investment arbitration had significant implications for the protection for the protection of the environment. She concluded that arbitrators have made it clear that they can, and will, award compensation to investors that claim to have been harmed by environmental regulation. She also found that some of the cases suggest that the mere threat of arbitration is sufficient to chill environmental policy development. Tienhaara was equally concerned by the possibility that a government may use the threat of arbitration as an excuse or cover for its failure to improve environmental regulation. In her view, it is evident that arbitrators have expropriated certain fundamental aspects of environmental governance from states. Tienhaara held: As a result, environmental regulation has become riskier, more expensive, and less democratic, especially in developing countries. This article provides a comparative analysis of the battles over fracking, investment, trade, and the environment in a number of key jurisdictions including the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. Part 1 focuses upon the United States. Part 2 examines the dispute between the Lone Pine Resources Inc. and the Government of Canada over a fracking moratorium in Quebec. Part 3 charts the rise of the Lock the Gate Alliance in Australia, and its demands for a moratorium in respect of coal seam gas and unconventional mining. Part 4 focuses upon parallel developments in New Zealand. This article concludes that Pacific Rim countries should withdraw from investor-state dispute settlement procedures, because of the threat posed to environmental regulation in respect of air, land, and water.

A life cycle assessment approach to quantifying greenhouse gas emissions from land-use change for beef production in eastern Australia

In life cycle assessment studies, greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from direct land-use change have been estimated to make a significant contribution to the global warming potential of agricultural products. However, these estimates have a high uncertainty due to the complexity of data requirements and difficulty in attribution of land-use change. This paper presents estimates of GHG emissions from direct land-use change from native woodland to grazing land for two beef production regions in eastern Australia, which were the subject of a multi-impact life cycle assessment study for premium beef production. Spatially- and temporally consistent datasets were derived for areas of forest cover and biomass carbon stocks using published remotely sensed tree-cover data and regionally applicable allometric equations consistent with Australia's national GHG inventory report. Standard life cycle assessment methodology was used to estimate GHG emissions and removals from direct land-use change attributed to beef production. For the northern-central New South Wales region of Australia estimates ranged from a net emission of 0.03 t CO2-e ha-1 year-1 to net removal of 0.12 t CO2-e ha-1 year-1 using low and high scenarios, respectively, for sequestration in regrowing forests. For the same period (1990-2010), the study region in southern-central Queensland was estimated to have net emissions from land-use change in the range of 0.45-0.25 t CO2-e ha-1 year-1. The difference between regions reflects continuation of higher rates of deforestation in Queensland until strict regulation in 2006 whereas native vegetation protection laws were introduced earlier in New South Wales. On the basis of liveweight produced at the farm-gate, emissions from direct land-use change for 1990-2010 were comparable in magnitude to those from other on-farm sources, which were dominated by enteric methane. However, calculation of land-use change impacts for the Queensland region for a period starting 2006, gave a range from net emissions of 0.11 t CO2-e ha-1 year-1 to net removals of 0.07 t CO2-e ha-1 year-1. This study demonstrated a method for deriving spatially- and temporally consistent datasets to improve estimates for direct land-use change impacts in life cycle assessment. It identified areas of uncertainty, including rates of sequestration in woody regrowth and impacts of land-use change on soil carbon stocks in grazed woodlands, but also showed the potential for direct land-use change to represent a net sink for GHG.

A dangerous investment: Australia, New Zealand and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

This week, San Diego is hosting the latest round of talks over the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Australia and New Zealand are at loggerheads over this secretive new trade treaty spanning the Pacific Rim. The rift between the neighbours over the Trans-Pacific Partnership was revealed after the investment chapter of the agreement was leaked to the public.

A mercurial treaty: The Trans-Pacific Partnership (# TPP) and the United States

According to the United States Trade Representative (USTR), Ron Kirk, the Trans-Pacific Partnership is “an ambitious, next-generation, Asia-Pacific trade agreement that reflects U.S. priorities and values”.

Trade war in the Pacific: ASEAN and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

Australian politicians are keen to project our participation in two major international trade talks - the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) - as unproblematic.

The Trans-Pacific Partnership, the environment, and climate change

The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is a sweeping, plurilateral free-trade agreement spanning the Pacific Rim.The ongoing, secretive treaty negotiations involve Australia and New Zealand; countries from South East Asia such as Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Singapore and Vietnam; the South American nations of Peru and Chile; and the members of the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement, Canada, Mexico and the United States. There has also been some discussion as to whether Japan should be included in the negotiations.

Will Obama fast-track the Trans-Pacific Partnership?

This week there has been discussions between leaders from the Pacific Rim over the Trans-Pacific Partnership in Bali, Indonesia at APEC...

Will the Pacific Rim become a gasland? Dirty fracking and the Trans-Pacific Partnership

There has been much debate about the relationship between international trade, and intellectual property, the environment, biodiversity protection, and climate change. The Obama Administration has pushed such issues into sharp relief, with its advocacy for sweeping international trade agreements, such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership. There has been much public concern about the impact of the Pacific Rim Treaty upon the protection of the environment. In particular, there has been a debate about whether the Trans-Pacific Partnership will promote dirty fracking...