Dr. Laurens Ankersmit:

I thank Deputy Richmond for his questions. A few examples of regulatory chill that are well known include the case of New Zealand delaying for six and a half years its plain packaging legislation because of the investor-state dispute settlement, ISDS, case against Australia. New Zealand delayed the introduction of plain packaging for smoking products specifically because of the ISDS case, a delay which was quite beneficial to these tobacco companies and perhaps less so for public health in New Zealand. Another well-known example is Indonesia, which decided to continue to issue environmental permits for mining operations in Indonesia as a result of threats of ISDS litigation. I could give the specifics on how it worked but I do not have them off the top of my head. Another example is where Romania has decided to withdraw nomination of the Roia Montan area as a UNESCO world heritage site because if it was to become a UNESCO world heritage site the biggest gold mine in Europe in that area would not receive an environmental permit. This is also due the ISDS claim issued by a Canadian mining company against Romania. Romania has admitted that the ISDS case is the reason for the application withdrawal. There are a few other examples.

A broader point may be where the Netherlands is now being sued for €1.4 billion for its moratorium on the use of coal as of 2030 by a German electricity producer. If the claim is won, that €1.4 billion is a lot of money with which one could do a lot of other things such as insulation of housing and other climate change projects. So, it is not only a matter of direct prevention of regulation, it also makes it less possible for governments to do certain things. A figure of €1.4 billion is a lot of money that could be spent on other things.

I shall now turn to the reactions I received from Commission officials, members of the European Parliament and members of the Council when I was working as a legal adviser to ClientEarth, a public interest organisation which is also established in the UK and Belgium. The reactions were quite diverse, as one can imagine, so it is difficult to summarise exactly the reactions. I started my work there after completing my PhD in 2015. Then the Commission had already received a very strong mandate to negotiate agreement with Canada that concluded investor-state dispute settlement. They were not going to say "Oh well, because Mr. Ankersmit [for example] raises these concerns we are no longer going to do it."

That is not how it works. The staff of the Commission listened politely. Basically, there is a mandate given by the Council. The European Parliament is split. There are a diverse number of interests. Many people are in favour of CETA. The biggest group in the European Parliament is the European People's Party. That group supports CETA and the European Parliament has already consented to CETA. There have been many different reactions, some agreeing with what I had to say and others more keen on going ahead with CETA.