ClientEarth, CAN Europe, FoEE and EEB are glad to invite you to the debate Should EU Member States fix the ECT or withdraw from it?

Tuesday, 30 March 13:30 – 15:30

Register here

13:30-14:00 Before the debate with the key speakers, there will be a short Intro Session on the Energy Charter Treaty

14:00-15:30 Debate with key speakers on the Energy Charter Treaty

The Energy Charter Treaty is gaining notoriety. Recent threats and claims by fossil fuel companies indicate a new trend of litigation. But this runs counter to another climate change litigation trend, that is pushing governments to take further climate actions.

The treaty has faced sharp criticism by civil society and Members of national parliaments and the European Parliament. Following the latest negotiating round to reform the Energy Charter Treaty at the beginning of March, this online debate asks our panel speakers, should EU Member States fix the Energy Charter Treaty or withdraw from it?

Guest speakers

Claude Turmes Minister for Energy and Minister for Spatial Planning

Diederik Maarten Samsom Head of cabinet for First Vice-President of the European Commission Frans Timmermans

Aurore Lalucq MEP Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats

Nathalie Bernasconi-Osterwalder Executive Director, IISD Europe

Olivier De Schutter Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights

The debate will be moderated by: Jennifer Baker EU Correspondent

The discussion will take place in English, with translation in French and Spanish.

Background

The Energy Charter Treaty (ECT) is gaining notoriety. Recent compensation claims and threats of lawsuits brought by fossil energy companies under the ECT against EU countries have sparked outcry from civil society and politicians. RWE’s recent €1.4bn claim against the Dutch coal phase-out law is the latest example. Environmentalists accuse the treaty of being an obstacle to the Paris Agreement and a just energy transition. Increasing debate around the ECT has raised the question of whether it can be reformed, or whether the EU and Member States should withdraw.

The investment treaty dates from the 1990s and was a tool to protect western energy investments in former Soviet bloc countries. The treaty includes the highly controversial investor-state dispute settlement that allows foreign investors in the energy sector to sue their host country if governments adopt measures – including for climate action – that harm their profits. Cases under this treaty can lead to governments paying out damages of hundreds of millions or billions of euros with taxpayers’ money. The mere threat of litigation under the ECT can stall progress as governments fear to pay the consequences to industry.

In light of the growing controversy, the ECT is currently undergoing a ‘modernisation’ process. ECT proponents, like the European Commission, argue that this will make the treaty climate-friendly and costly lawsuits against legitimate regulation less likely. Civil society and other decision makers warn that proposals put forward for the negotiations are not ambitious enough and will not result in a meaningful transformation of the treaty. Moreover, unanimity voting between ECT Parties makes achieving meaningful change impossible. Political pressure is growing. Member of Parliament from across Europe have called on EU Member States to jointly withdraw from the ECT. At the same time, the ECT is pushing to expand the agreement’s reach in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.

Join our debate on the prospects for reform and preventing the Energy Charter Treaty from further obstructing the Paris Agreement, the European Green Deal, and the energy transition.