Association of Accredited Public Policy Advocates to the European Union - T-TIP

T-TIP AND THE VIEW OF THE EPP GROUP IN THE EP

christian — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:20:13 +0000

The EPP Group stresses that the T-TIP must not and cannot overrule, repeal or amend EU laws and regulations. Any changes to EU laws have to be approved by the competent Institutions. The EPP Group considers that, for trade negotiations, a certain amount of confidentiality should be maintained, so as not to undermine the EU's own position in the negotiations. However, this confidentiality should be balanced by an accurate and appropriate flow of information to the other stakeholders and to the public, including the European Parliament and the Council.

1. Agriculture and Consumer Protection

The EPP Group believe that the EU should not negotiate on existing levels of protection for the sake of an agreement and therefore the high level of protection here in Europe is non-negotiable. The U.S. has the same concerns and is committed to high levels of protection. However the EPP Group supports the idea that improvements could and should be made to make EU regulations more compatible, and that the EU should be willing to take a pragmatic view on whether things can be done better and in a more coordinated fashion.

The negotiations on agriculture are crucial to having a balanced final agreement and the EPP Group believes that opening up agriculture markets can be a two-way street with benefits for both the EU and the U.S. In particular, the agreement can create tremendous opportunities for agro-food products where some of them, such as apples and various cheeses, are banned from the U.S. market and others are subject to high U.S. tariffs - 30% on meat, 22% on drinks and up to 139% on dairy products.

Furthermore, no sheep meat can be exported to the U.S. due to strict U.S. requirements on infectious viral diseases, and about half of the U.S. states do not allow the sale of raw milk. Removing these and other barriers will help boost EU exports to the U.S.

2. GMOs

In the European Union’s current system, applications for approval are assessed by the European Food Safety Authority and then sent to Member States for their opinion. This risk-management assessment must not be affected by the negotiations. The EPP Group opposes any change in EU laws as a result of the agreement and considers that the current legislation should continue to be applied.

The EPP Group considers that the negotiations should not be about compromising the health of consumers for commercial gain. Meat with hormones should continue to be banned in the EU market. Tough EU laws, like those relating to hormones, or those that exist to protect human life and health, animal health and welfare, environment or consumer interests will not form part of the negotiations; therefore meat with hormones should continue to be banned in the EU market. The Commission has confirmed such an approach and is not negotiating on this issue.

3. Culture and Audiovisual

Europe is not closed to American movies, but has rules to protect Europe's cultural diversity. The majority of the EPP Group has made it clear that the audio-visual sector has to be excluded from the scope of the negotiations. This sector is not part of the Council's mandate and is not negotiated.

4. Intellectual Property Rights, Data Protection and Investment Protection

The EPP Group considers that the position of the European Parliament, which voted against the Anti-Counterfeiting Agreement (ACTA), has to be fully respected and therefore there is no option of getting ACTA through the back door. On the other hand, IPRs (Intellectual Property Rights) will be part of the negotiations; both the EU and the U.S. already have efficient rules for protecting IPR, maybe with a different approach. The EPP Group recognizes that the T-TIP could make trade between the EU and the U.S. easier for a limited number of important IPR issues without weakening these rules.

With regard to data protection, the EPP Group believes that both parties should regulate data privacy in a different way and therefore the T-TIP is not the right place to address these differences. The EU is in talks with the U.S. on access to data by enforcement authorities with the aim of getting an Umbrella Agreement on data protection in order to combat terrorism and serious crime. These talks must not affect the T-TIP.

5. Investor to State Dispute Settlement

The Investor to State Dispute Settlement is an issue which has been included in all the previous investment protection treaties negotiated by the Member States with third countries, including the United States. Therefore the EPP Group considers that it should continue to be part of the negotiations, since the possibility of appealing to an international body for arbitration would offer the foreign investor the best guarantee that their investments will be adequately protected.

Nevertheless the scope of the application of ISDS should be limited to a few precise cases, such as expropriation, and framed within a more transparent and improved procedure with better rules in terms of government control of and a code of conduct for arbitrators.

6. Public Services

Public services are excluded from the scope of these negotiations. There is therefore no risk of undermining the free choice of EU municipalities on whether or not to liberalise such services.

7. Regulatory Convergence

Harmonisation is not on the agenda of the talks and the EPP Group thinks it should stay that way. The T-TIP is not about trying to convince both parties to change their own system of regulation, but rather about finding ways to make the two systems work more smoothly.

Vehicles, pharmaceutical and medical devices are three areas where there is particular scope for regulatory convergence and the EPP Group considers that negotiators should make efforts to reduce such divergences, whenever and wherever it is possible.

Tags:

T-TIP

EPP Views

T-TIP AND THE VIEW OF THE S&D GROUP IN THE EP

christian — Sat, 27 Sep 2014 11:50:47 +0000

The S&D Group (Socialists and Democrats) recognizes the opportunities of the agreement. Especially as regards improved access to the U.S. markets for services and public procurement, recognition of technical standards, protection of EU geographical indications and the abolition of U.S. trade restrictions (as for instance the 'Buy American Act' and the 'Jones Act'), the EU and its industries and services have clear offensive interests under the T-TIP. Furthermore, the T-TIP can provide an opportunity to reinforce workers' rights in the USA, based on high ILO and EU standards. This opportunity is also clearly emphasized by the U.S. Trade Union Federation AFL-CIO.

At the same time however, the S&D Group makes a number of crucial demands to this agreement. The fulfillment of these demands will have to be the basis when analyzing the final text and when deciding about whether or not the S& D Group can give its consent to the agreement. S&D Group demands focus on the following critical elements:

1. No lowering of EU standards

The EU's Acquis Communautaire must not be compromised. The opening of markets and any increase in competition must not be detrimental to consumer safety or terms and conditions of employment. In relation to food and consumer protection, the European Commission must insist for the EU precautionary principle to be maintained. With regard to food safety in particular, it needs to be ruled out that meat from animals that have undergone hormone treatment, or certain biotech products, are imported into the EU. In the same way, sanitary and phyto-sanitary measures and standards that currently apply to genetically-modified organisms within the EU must not be eroded as a result of the T-TIP. Cloned, hormone treated, or genetically modified meat, or meat from the USA that has been cleaned using chlorine lye, must not be allowed to find its way into the EU. Furthermore, audiovisual services and the cultural diversity in the EU must be protected.

2. Data protection

Data protection should not be dealt with in the T-TIP and EU Data protection legislation should be adopted and in force before the T-TIP enters into force. Data flows across the Atlantic should be subject to it. At the same time, the NSA scandal has had a long term negative impact upon the level of trust that exists between the two trading partners. The S&D Group therefore demands the swift conclusion of a framework agreement between the EU and the USA regarding basic principles of data protection. In particular, EU citizens must be afforded the same protection from data espionage as what is provided to U.S. citizens.

3. Regulation of financial markets

The T-TIP must include binding and common measures with regard to the regulation of financial markets, including the regulations of financial services and financial market products. It should not be forgotten that it was not least the unregulated transatlantic financial flow that exported the financial crisis from the USA to the EU.

4. No circumvention of democratic legislative processes

Any joint consultative body created in the framework of the T-TIP should not infringe on the legislative powers and the prerogatives of the European Parliament. This would not only risk creating a highly non-transparent procedure, but it would also circumvent parliaments and the U.S. Congress as the responsible legislative bodies.

5. Labour Rights

The T-TIP provides an opportunity to reinforce workers’ rights in the USA. The fundamental standards of the ILO regarding the freedom of association, the recognition of trade unions and the creation of works councils should be used as a guideline in that regard and should be embedded within the treaty itself.

Therefore, the S&D Group insists on the full and effective implementation by the U.S. of the ILO core labour standards, on the federal as well as on the sub-federal level, which could be better achieved by the ratification by the U.S. of core ILO conventions.

6. Investor to State Dispute Settlement

It has become clear that the U.S. negotiators and the European Commission wish to agree upon what is known as an investor-state dispute resolution mechanism (ISDS). This mechanism could enable investors to circumvent conventional domestic judicial procedures and to initiate legal proceedings before international arbitration courts against the EU or the U.S. as well as individual Member States directly, in order to claim compensation for an alleged loss of investment value. In the past, ISDS has enabled private investors to initiate legal proceedings against legislation enacted by sovereign states also in crucial fields such as health, the environment or consumer protection.

ISDS is not a new instrument; it is commonly used in bilateral investment treaties, including between EU Member states. However, the S&D Group opposes the inclusion of ISDS in this agreement, as both parties are based on solid rule of law principles and have reliable and well developed legal and judicial systems.

7. Transparency of negotiations

The secrecy of the negotiations is not only questionable in democratic terms; it also prevents a public debate based on facts rather than rumours. While after the Lisbon Treaty, transparency of trade negotiations has improved significantly, the S&D Group is demanding that every single negotiation document be made accessible to the European parliament and to the Council, including those of the USA. In general, fundamental documents, including the negotiating mandate, should be made available to the public.

The T-TIP negotiations have so far been rather disappointing as the U.S. side does not seem to move on the crucial EU demands. In order for negotiations to advance, the U.S. side needs to show more flexibility.

Tags:

T-TIP

S&D GROUP

U.S. FOOD AND AGRICULTURAL SECTOR AND THE T-TIP

christian — Wed, 24 Sep 2014 10:17:28 +0000

The organizations and companies here below represent the vast majority of U.S. food and agricultural producers, processors and exporters that initially registered strong support for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP).

However they are concerned by the European Parliament demands that the European Commission should defend the SPS barriers and the precautionary principle on which they were based, yet, on the other hand, calling on the United States to lift its ban on EU beef, which resulted from the BSE crisis, “as a trust-building measure.” At the core, they argue the EU’s non-scientific notion of “precaution” has led to the adoption of many trade-restrictive measures that have resulted in several high-profile WTO disputes in which the EU’s defense of the precautionary principle has been ruled to be inconsistent with WTO rules. Such precautionary measures they point out are often based on mere hazard identification – or worse, on public perception and political considerations – rather than proper, science-based risk assessments, as required by the WTO. And, even in cases where risk assessments are ultimately carried out, the EU they say has demonstrated an inability to lift unjustifiable measures because of domestic political pressures. From their perspective, “Precaution” in the EU has become a pretext for import protectionism under the pretense of consumer safety. As a result, U.S. exports have repeatedly paid the price.

Examples of such problems include unjustifiable restrictions on production methods that negatively affect exports of U.S. meat, poultry and dairy products, as well as fresh fruits; discriminatory and trade-restricting labeling requirements; political and regulatory barriers to agricultural biotechnology that restrict U.S. corn, soy and processed corn and soy product exports; and imposition of arbitrary sustainability requirements on the production of feedstocks in the United States and other countries for biofuels used in the EU.

If, selected sectors or measures are excluded from the TTIP they say, or placed into a “future negotiation” category, the TTIP will fall short of achieving the Administration’s goal for it to be a high-class 21st century agreement, and it will likely fail to win the overall support of the food and agricultural sector that will be needed to ensure final passage of this agreement.

Signatories

American Farm Bureau Federation
American Feed Industry Association
American Frozen Food Institute
American Meat Institute
American Sheep Industry Association
American Soybean Association
Animal Health Institute
Biotechnology Industry Organization
California Farm Bureau Federation
California Poultry Federation
Corn Refiners Association
Georgia Poultry Federation
Grocery Manufacturers Association
International Dairy Foods Association
Michigan Agri-Business Association
Michigan Bean Shippers
National Association of State Departments of Agriculture (NASDA)
National Association of Wheat Growers
National Barley Growers Association
National Cattlemen's Beef Association
National Chicken Council
National Confectioners Association
National Corn Growers Association
National Council of Farmer Cooperatives
National Grain and Feed Association
National Milk Producers Federation
National Oilseed Processors Association
National Pork Producers Council
National Renderers Association
National Sorghum Producers
National Turkey Federation
North American Equipment Dealers Association
North American Export Grain Association
North American Meat Association
North Carolina Poultry Federation
Northwest Horticultural Council
Pet Food Institute
U.S. Apple Association
U.S. Canola Association
U.S. Dairy Export Council
U.S. Grains Council
U.S. Livestock Genetics Export, Inc.
U.S. Wheat Associates
USA Dry Pea & Lentil Council
USA Poultry & Egg Export Council
USA Rice Federation
Western Growers Association

Tags:

US Food and Agricultural Sector

T-TIP

THE T-TIP : U.S. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

christian — Tue, 23 Sep 2014 13:08:54 +0000

This factsheet describes the U.S. Administration’s specific goals and objectives for the T-TIP in terms of TRADE IN GOODS, TEXTILES AND APPAREL, NON-TARIFF BARRIERS AND REGULATORY ISSUES, RULES OF ORIGIN, TRADE IN SERVICES, ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AND INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) SERVICES, INVESTMENT, CUSTOMS AND TRADE FACILITATION, GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT, LABOR, ENVIRONMENT, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES, SMALL AND MEDIUM SIZED ENTERPRISES (SMEs), TRANSPARENCY, ANTICORRUPTION AND COMPETITION, DISPUTE SETTLEMENT.

TRADE IN GOODS

The U.S. seeks to eliminate all tariffs and other duties and charges on trade in agricultural, industrial and consumer products between the United States and the EU, with substantial duty elimination on entry into force of the agreement, transition periods where necessary for sensitive products, and appropriate safeguard mechanisms to be applied if and where necessary.

TEXTILES AND APPAREL

The U.S. seeks to obtain fully reciprocal access to the EU market for U.S. textile and apparel products, supported by effective and efficient customs cooperation and other rules to facilitate U.S.-EU trade in textiles and apparel.

NON-TARIFF BARRIERS AND REGULATORY ISSUES

The U.S. seeks to eliminate or reduce non-tariff barriers that decrease opportunities for U.S. exports, provide a competitive advantage to products of the EU, or otherwise distort trade, such as unwarranted sanitary and phytosanitary (SPS) restrictions that are not based on science, unjustified technical barriers to trade (TBT), and other “behind-the-border” barriers, including the restrictive administration of tariff-rate quotas and permit and licensing barriers, which impose unnecessary costs and limit competitive opportunities for U.S. exports.

While maintaining the level of health, safety and environmental protection, the U.S. seeks greater compatibility of U.S. and EU regulations and related standards development processes, with the objective of reducing costs associated with unnecessary regulatory differences and facilitating trade, inter alia by promoting transparency in the development and implementation of regulations and good regulatory practices, establishing mechanisms for future progress, and pursuing regulatory cooperation initiatives where appropriate;

The U.S. seeks to build on key principles and disciplines of the WTO Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) through strong cross-cutting disciplines and, as appropriate, through sectoral approaches, to achieve meaningful market access, and establish ongoing mechanisms for improved dialogue and cooperation on TBT issues;

The U.S. seeks to build on key principles and disciplines of the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on the Application of Sanitary and Phyto-sanitary Measures (SPS) to achieve meaningful market access, including commitments to base SPS measures on science and international standards or scientific risk assessments, apply them only to the extent necessary to protect human, animal, or plant life or health, and develop such measures in a transparent manner, without undue delay; and to establish an on-going mechanism for improved dialogue and cooperation addressing bilateral SPS issues.

RULES OF ORIGIN

The U.S. seeks to establish rules of origin that ensure that duty rates under an agreement with the EU apply only to goods eligible to receive such treatment and define procedures to apply and enforce such rules.

TRADE IN SERVICES

The U.S. seeks to obtain improved market access in the EU on a comprehensive basis, and address the operation of any designated monopolies and state-owned enterprises, as appropriate; and

The U.S. seeks to reinforce transparency, impartiality, and due process with regard to authorizations to supply services, obtain additional disciplines in certain services sectors, and improve regulatory cooperation where appropriate.

ELECTRONIC COMMERCE AND INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY (ICT) SERVICES

The U.S. seeks to develop appropriate provisions to facilitate the use of electronic commerce to support goods and services trade, including through commitments not to impose customs duties on digital products or unjustifiably discriminate among products delivered electronically;

The U.S. seeks to include provisions that facilitate the movement of cross-border data flows.

INVESTMENT

The U.S. seeks to secure for U.S. investors in the EU important rights comparable to those that would be available under U.S. legal principles and practice, while ensuring that EU investors in the United States are not accorded greater substantive rights with respect to investment protections than U.S. investors in the United States;

The U.S. seeks to ensure that U.S. investors receive treatment as favorable as that accorded to EU investors or other foreign investors in the EU, and seek to reduce or eliminate artificial or trade-distorting barriers to the establishment and operation of U.S. investment in the EU;

The U.S. seeks to provide and maintain meaningful procedures for resolving disputes between U.S. investors and the EU and its Member States that are in keeping with the goals of expeditious, fair and transparent dispute resolution and the objective of ensuring that governments maintain the discretion to regulate in the public interest.

CUSTOMS AND TRADE FACILITATION

The U.S. seeks to establish disciplines to ensure transparent, efficient, and predictable conduct of customs operations and ensure that customs measures are not applied in a manner that creates unwarranted procedural obstacles to trade; and enhance customs cooperation between the United States and the EU and its Member States.

GOVERNMENT PROCUREMENT

The U.S. seeks to expand market access opportunities for U.S. goods, services, and suppliers of goods and services to the government procurement markets of the EU and its Member States;

The U.S. seeks to ensure fair, transparent, and predictable conduct of government procurement and that U.S. suppliers of goods and services receive treatment as favorable as that accorded to domestic and other foreign goods, services, and suppliers in the EU and its Member States.

LABOR

The U.S. seeks to obtain appropriate commitments by the EU with respect to internationally recognized labor rights and effective enforcement of labor laws concerning those rights, consistent with U.S. priorities and objectives, and establish procedures for consultations and cooperation to promote respect for internationally recognized labor rights.

ENVIRONMENT

The U.S. seeks to obtain, consistent with U.S. priorities and objectives, appropriate commitments by the EU to protect the environment, including conserving natural resources, and to effectively enforce environmental laws, and seek opportunities to address environmental issues of mutual interest.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS

The U.S. seeks to obtain, consistent with U.S. priorities and objectives, appropriate commitments that reflect the shared U.S.-EU objective of high-level IPR protection and enforcement, and to sustain and enhance joint leadership on IPR issues;

The U.S. seeks new opportunities to advance and defend the interests of U.S. creators, innovators, businesses, farmers, and workers with respect to strong protection and effective enforcement of intellectual property rights, including their ability to compete in foreign markets.

STATE-OWNED ENTERPRISES

The U.S. seeks to establish appropriate, globally relevant disciplines on state trading enterprises, state-owned enterprises, and designated monopolies, such as disciplines that promote transparency and reduce trade distortions.

SMALL-AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES (SMES)

The U.S. seeks to strengthen U.S.-EU cooperation to enhance the participation of SMEs in trade between the United States and the EU.

TRANSPARENCY, ANTICORRUPTION AND COMPETITION

The U.S. seeks to obtain improved transparency in the administration of EU and Member State trade and investment regimes, and rules that ensure trade- and investment-related measures are adopted and applied in an open and transparent manner that provides meaningful opportunities for public comment, notice, and review;

The U.S. seeks to obtain appropriate commitments on anticorruption;

The U.S. seeks to address matters of mutual interest regarding competition policy and process and to further improve cooperation on competition policy.

DISPUTE SETTLEMENT

The U.S. seeks to establish fair, transparent, timely, and effective procedures to settle disputes on matters arising under a trade and investment agreement with the EU, including through early identification and settlement of disputes through consultation.

Tags:

T-TIP

U.S. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES

TRANSATLANTIC-TRADE AND INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP (T-TIP): MYTHS AND REALITY

christian — Mon, 22 Sep 2014 15:36:13 +0000

MYTH: T-TIP negotiations are happening in secret and the agreement will be concluded out of the public eye. The reality is that the EU and the U.S. are only in the very early stages of discussions but have published their goals and objectives.
MYTH: T-TIP is undemocratic / the process lacks transparency. Why can’t people vote on it? The reality is that like any negotiation, T-TIP preliminary discussions require a degree of confidentiality until negotiations are concluded.
MYTH: T-TIP will only benefit very large businesses. The reality is that small businesses and start-ups have much more to gain from T-TIP than big firms.
MYTH: T-TIP will lead to dangerous deregulation and loss of quality and safety. The reality is that the T-TIP will not lower EU or U.S. standards – it’s about finding ways to make regulations on both sides more compatible and removing redundancies while achieving the same high levels of protection.
MYTH: T-TIP will end multilateralism and the WTO’s Doha Round. The reality is that both the EU and U.S. remain committed to a multilateral approach involving as many countries as possible.
MYTH: T-TIP will harm developing countries and newly emerging economies. The reality is that greater compatibility and enhanced transparency regarding U.S. and EU standards and regulations will make it easier and more affordable for developing countries to sell their products on both sides of the Atlantic.
MYTH: Why do we need something so new and untried? The reality is that while the U.S./EU trade relationship is still the largest in the world - currently making up about one third of global GDP - combined share of the global market has been shrinking. Fifteen years ago U.S./EU trade accounted for half of the world’s GDP. There is a need to act now to ensure Transatlantic leadership on trade rules and standards that safeguard worldwide benchmarks for quality, transparency and market access.
MYTH: T-TIP will force EU countries to accept Genetically Modified Foods and will force EU countries to abandon laws to protect the environment. The reality is that the goal of T-TIP is to expand bilateral trade and investment, not to re-write laws and regulations on either side.
MYTH: The investor-State dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) will impose new, extra-legal conditions, requiring EU countries to comply with US- or corporate diktats, overturning EU member states’ political sovereignty. The reality is that international investments are already protected by a vast network of bilateral and multilateral agreements; U.S. agreements improve upon this body of rules through numerous safeguards.

Tags:

T-TIP

myths and reality