Exxon Mobil’s disastrous NAFTA win against Canada: Resource management and sustainable development take a hit in three different investor-state disputes
http://canadians.org/blog/?p=15570
엑슨모빌, 나프타로 캐나다에 재앙적인 승리
투자자-국가 소송(ISD) 세 가지에서 자원 관리와 지속가능한 발전이 타격을 입다
By Stuart Trew, Monday, June 4th, 2012
사적인 투자자-국가 중재 법정에서 자원 관리에 나쁜 일이 벌어진 한 주였다. 우선 우리는 국제투자분쟁해결기구(ICSID)가 캐나다 광산 기업인 퍼시픽 림이 엘살바도르 정부를 상대로 제기한 소송의 심리를 열 것이라는 사실을 알게 됐다. 엘살바도르 정부가 대규모 금광과 은광 개발에 대한 허가를 내주지 않자 퍼시픽 림이 제기한 소송이다. 인근 공동체에서는 이 광산 개발을 거세게 반대하고 있다. 퍼시픽 림이 중미자유무역협정(CAFTA)에 따라 제기한 청구가 폐기됐음에도, ICSID는 (엘살바도르 정부가) 투자 관련 규칙을 위반했는지 결정할 것이다.
그로부터 며칠 후인 6월 1일, <투자 중재 리포터>에 따르면 “스웨덴 에너지 기업인 바텐폴은 (독일이) 원자력을 단계적으로 폐기하기로 결정한 것과 관련해 독일 정부를 상대로 국제 중재를 신청하겠다고 위협했다.” 바텐폴은 7억 유로 정도를 배상할 것을 요구하고 있다.
마지막이자 아마도 캐나다에 가장 중요한 것은 나프타 법정이 ‘캐나다 (북동부) 뉴펀들랜드 해안 근처의 하이버니아 (해상) 유전에서 석유를 생산하는 업체들에게 이익의 일부를 (뉴펀들랜드 래브라도) 주(州)의 연구개발에 투자하게 한 것은 불법적인 이행의무(performance requirement)’라고 2-1로 결정한 것이다. (이 유전에서 석유를 생산하는) 엑슨모빌과 머피오일은 (자신들에게) “불필요하고” “상업적으로 필요하지도 않은” 이 지역의 연구개발 및 교육훈련을 위해 어마어마한 돈을 썼다고 주장했다.
캐나다 법에 따르면 합법, 나프타에 따르면 불법
엑슨모빌과 머피오일은 1994-2004년에 (뉴펀들랜드 래브라도) 주의 법률과 규정에 따라 연구개발 (투자) 비용으로 1억6700만 달러를 썼는데, 이것은 투자에 대한 이행의무 부과를 금지하는 나프타에 따라 면제돼야 하는 것이라고 주장했다.
(그러나) 하이버니아 개발 프로젝트 법에 따르면, 캐나다와 “하이버니아 프로젝트 소유주”는 캐나다와 뉴펀들랜드에서 어떠한 과업의 수행에 착수하고, “복리후생” 제공과 관련해 캐나다와 뉴펀들랜드의 특정한 “목표 수준”을 달성하고자 최선을 다하는 것에 관해 합의할 수 있다. 이에 더해 캐나다는 하이버니아 프로젝트와 관련해 자격 요건을 부과하거나 기술, 생산 공정, 지식을 캐나다 기업에 이전하도록 강제할 수 있게 돼 있다.
엑슨모빌과 머피오일이 나프타에 따라 국제 중재를 신청하자, 캐나다 정부는 2004년에 연구개발 관련 요건이 늘어난 것은 (엑슨모빌과 머피오일이) 주(州)법이 규정한 의무를 위반하고 연구개발 비용을 줄였기 때문이라고 주장했다. 또한 연구개발이나 교육훈련 관련 요건은 나프타의 “이행의무” 규정에 포함되지 않는다고 설득력 있게 주장했다. 연방 측은 진술서를 통해, 설령 그것들이 이행의무 규정에 포함된다 하더라도, 주(州)의 가이드라인에 따라 지역의 상품이나 서비스를 구매하도록 강제하는 일은 없다는 점에서 그렇게 중요한 사항은 아니라고 주장했다. 마지막으로 하이버니아 법률 및 그 이후의 어떠한 개정안도 나프타에서 면제돼야 한다(고 주장했다).
그래서 나프타 법정이 ‘사실 연구개발 관련 이전은 불법적인 이행의무이며 하이버니아 법은 중요하지 않다’고 주장하며 캐나다에 불리한 결정을 내린 것은 믿기 어려운 일이다. 결정문이 공개되기 전까지는 패널들의 추론에 대해 알 수 없을 것이다. 적절한 배상금이 얼마인지 계산이 끝나기 전까지는 이를 기대하기 어렵다.
캐나다 언론 보도에 따르면, “석유 회사들은 5000만 달러를 요구했지만 나프타 패널들은 이 금액을 주지 않았다. 그 대신 (패널들은) 추가 정보를 요구했다. 배상에 관한 또 다른 결정을 공표할 것으로 예상된다.”
엑슨모빌은 2011년에 4529억 달러를 벌어들여 411억 달러의 이익을 거둔, 세계 최대 규모의 기업이다. 뉴펀들랜드 래브라도 주 정부가 요청한 연구개발 지원금은 (엑손모빌) 수익의 0.16퍼센트다.
(…) 자원을 지속가능하게 그리고 대중의 이익을 위해 관리한다는, 헌법에 규정된 주(州)의 권리가 거대 기업을 편드는 사적인 투자 법정에 의해 그 기반이 약해지고 있다. (…) 이번 엑슨모빌-머피오일 관련 결정은 자원에 대한 기업의 권리를 캐나다의 법과 법원이 허용하는 범위를 넘어서는 지점까지 확장한 것 같다. (…) 공공 정책을 위기로 몰아넣는 위험한 투자 보호 조약에 관한 협상을 멈추도록 캐나다 정부에 더 압력을 가해야 할 때다.
was a bad week for resource management in the private tribunals of investor-state arbitration. First we learned that the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) at the World Bank will hear Canadian mining firm Pacific Rim’s case against El Salvador for denying permits to build a large gold and silver mine that was fiercely opposed by nearby communities. Although the firm’s CAFTA claim was discarded, ICSID will nonetheless decide whether internal investment rules were breached.
A few days later, on June 1, Investment Arbitration Reporter wrote (subscription only) that, “Swedish energy company Vattenfall has made good on a threat to bring an international arbitration claim against the Federal Republic of Germany in relation to that country’s recent decision to phase-out nuclear power.” The company is demanding as much as 700 million EUR ($907 million) in damages under the Energy Charter Treaty for what was essentially a precautionary rethinking of energy policy after the Fukushima disaster.
Finally and probably most importantly for Canada, a NAFTA tribunal decided in a 2-1 ruling that a general requirement for oil producers in the Hibernia oil field off the coast of Newfoundland to invest some of their profits in research and development in the province was an illegal “performance requirement.” Exxon Mobil and Murphy Oil, in their joint April 2009 memorial, called the millions they were paying into provincial R&D and Education and Training transfers “unnecessary” and not based on “commercial need.”
Exxon Mobil is the richest company in the world with 2011 profits of over $41 billion USD.
LEGAL UNDER CANADIAN LAW, ILLEGAL UNDER NAFTA
The firms claim that between 1994 and 2004 they had already paid $167 million into R&D under provincial laws and regulations that were exempted from a NAFTA prohibition on performance requirements on investment. The NAFTA Annex I reservation states:
Pursuant to the Hibernia Development Project Act, Canada and the “Hibernia Project Owners” may enter into agreements whereby the Project Owners undertake to perform certain work in Canada and Newfoundland and to use their “best efforts” to achieve specific Canadian and Newfoundland “target levels” in relation to the provisions of any “benefit plan” required under the Canada-Newfoundland Atlantic Accord Implementation Act. “Benefits plans” are further described in Schedule of Canada, Annex I, page I-C-25.
In addition, Canada may impose in connection with the Hibernia project any requirement or enforce any commitment or undertaking for the transfer of technology, a production process or other proprietary knowledge to a national or enterprise in Canada.
The Government of Canada, in its response to the firms’ NAFTA claim, argued that the 2004 increase in required R&D transfers was based on declining R&D expenditures in breach of obligations under provincial law. Three levels of Canadian courts had rejected immediate legal challenges to the new guidelines, which were found to be completely in accordance with the Hibernia Acts.
The Government also argued convincingly that R&D or Education and Training requirements do not fall within NAFTA’s definition of “performance requirements.” Even if they did, the federal submission says, they would not count as such because there is no compulsion under the provincial guidelines to purchase local goods or services. Finally, as mentioned already, the Hibernia legislation and any subsequent small amendments to its guidelines should be exempted from NAFTA. Neither the U.S. nor Mexico in their own submissions to the case disputed it..
So it is incredible that the NAFTA tribunal found against Canada, arguing that in fact the R&D transfers are an illegal performance requirement and that the carveout for the Hibernia Act simply doesn’t matter. We won’t be able to see the panel’s reasoning until the decision is made public, which isn’t expected to happen before appropriate compensation is figured out.
According to a Canadian Press report based on another IAReporter article, “For compensation in this case, the oil companies had asked for $50-million, an amount the NAFTA panel did not give them. Instead, it asked for more information and is expected to issue another ruling with a monetary award.”
Exxon Mobil and Murphy argued in their memorial that “Compliance with the Guidelines over the remaining lifetime of their investments in the Hibernia and Terra Nova projects is expected to cause Claimants to suffer damages in excess of CDN $65 million on a present value basis.”
Exxon Mobil had revenues of $452.9 billion USD and profits of $41.1 billion USD in 2011, edging out Wal-Mart as the richest company in the world. The R&D money the Newfoundland and Labrador government was seeking equaled 0.16 per cent of profits.
CORPORATE RIGHTS TO RESOURCES – NO QUESTIONS ASKED
The NAFTA Chapter 11 loss for Canada highlights the relative powers of multinational oil and gas firms over governments under international investment treaties. Like in the AbitibiBowater dispute, also against Newfoundland and Labrador and which the federal government settled for $130 million, provincial rights under the Constitution to manage resources sustainably and in the interest of the public are being undermined by private investment tribunals siding with big business.
“In decisions concerning such resources, the interests of investors ought to be balanced against other legitimate interests, such as those of workers, local businesses, communities and the environment,” said Scott Sinclair, senior trade researcher with CCPA, in a presentation to trade committee last year. “Under Canadian constitutional law and the division of powers, these are clearly matters to be decided by the provincial legislature…
“By contrast,” he added, “the AbitibiBowater settlement embraces an open-ended, excessively broad conception of property rights which goes well beyond reasonable protections and Canadian legal norms.”
Steven Shrybman, a trade lawyer and member of the Council of Canadians board of directors, explained to the same trade committee the consequences of the AbitibiBowater decision related to water rights. By settling with the company, he said, “the federal government has invited claims by any foreign owned company that loses an entitlement to take surface or groundwater in Canada for commercial purposes.”
The ExxonMobil-Murphy decision appears to extend those corporate rights to resources even further out of reach of Canadian laws and courts. It is cause enough to tear up the NAFTA Chapter 11 pages related to investor-state disputes and to refrain from signing any more investment treaties until the process has been gutted or radically revised. That includes with the EU in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement.
MAKING THE SAME MISTAKE IN EU NEGOTIATIONS
At the very least, the Exxon Mobil-Murphy decision should be a caution to to provincial governments deciding what laws, regulations and other measures to protect in CETA negotiations. Clearly the Annex I reservation is insufficient if investment dispute arbitrators will find the remotest change to an exempted measure–in this case new guidelines for completely legal R&D transfers–is prohibited under trade and investment rules. The same threats to legitimate public policy exist wherever Canada hasn’t sought protection for future policy measures in Annex II.
This includes, in CETA, our public health care system, where provincial governments are leaning on a fairly weak federal carveout for future measures and not taking any Annex II protection of their own. The same goes for municipally delivered services such as water, transit and energy, where the federal government is simply grandfathering existing non-conforming measures (ex. public monopolies to deliver these services) but where neither the federal nor provincial governments want protection for future measures.
At a minimum, the provinces should go over their CETA offers in light of this latest NAFTA loss to see where they need to be more careful. Considering how understaffed many provincial negotiating teams are, they should seek outside support for this or, god forbid, hold public hearings of some kind. I also think the federal government needs to revise this section from its “Myths and Realities About Canada’s Free Trade Agreements“:
Myth #8: Free trade agreements allow foreign investors and foreign companies to challenge Canadian laws and regulations.
Facts:
- Canada’s FTAs do not allow foreign investors or companies to force a government to change its laws and regulations.
- Including mechanisms for dispute resolution through international arbitration in FTAs does not restrict any level of government from legitimately legislating in the public interest.
- Canadian and foreign investors alike are subject to all of Canada’s laws and regulations pertaining to environmental, labour, health care, building and safety standards.
Does the Exxon-Murphy NAFTA ruling not contradict each one of these claims?
CP reports, “A spokeswoman for the federal Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade said the government was disappointed and was still reviewing the decision.”
We’ll have more information when it’s available. It’s time to increase the pressure on the Canadian government to stop negotiating dangerous investment protection treaties that put public policy at risk in all countries. Check back for campaign updates and actions to help us make this case over the coming months.
