Corporate Europe Observatory

Exposing the power of corporate lobbying in the EU

Who’s scripting the EU-US trade deal?

  • Dansk
  • Nederlands
  • English
  • Suomi
  • Français
  • Deutsch
  • Ελληνικά
  • Italiano
  • Bokmål
  • Polski
  • Portuguese
  • Română
  • Slovenščina
  • Español
  • Svenska

A far-reaching trade deal – the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) or Transatlantic Free Trade Agreement (TAFTA) – between the US and EU is to be negotiated, yet the European Commission has drawn a smokescreen over who is setting the agenda for its negotiating position. Amid concerns about the deal's social and environmental impacts, as well as what it will mean for democratic policy-making, Corporate Europe Observatory tried to find out what will be on the treaty table.

Negotiations for the EU-US free trade deal have just been launched officially. Masterminded by the 'High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth' (HLWG), which was set up in 2011 and chaired by European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and the then US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, in its final report, the Group not only recommended entering into the negotiations but went into some detail as to what should be put on the table – with the far-reaching aim of moving towards a “transatlantic marketplace”.

The proposed deal is being closely followed by public interest groups concerned that the deal will open the floodgate to GMOs and shale gas (fracking) into Europe, threatens digital and labour rights and will empower corporations to legally challenge a wide range of regulations which they dislike. With all this and more at stake, Corporate Europe Observatory wanted to find out who sat on the group which recommended negotiations. Under EU access to information rules, on 4 March 2013, we requested the “full membership list of the High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth”. In fact, we had to make numerous requests.

A group without members, a report without authors?

According to the Commission, the group, which has been active since 2011 and which has produced two reports, has no identifiable members (“a membership list of the HLWG does not exist”). The Commission also informed us that “several departments” have contributed to the discussion and the reports of the (memberless) group, but added that “there is no document containing the list of authors of the reports”. As there was no such document, the Commission claimed, our request did not fall under the EU’s freedom of information rules: “Unfortunately we are not in a position to provide you with the information requested.”

We were also told that the HLWG was not “an expert group falling under the categories referred to in the register of expert groups and other similar entities”. Why not? “First, it is a joint working group set up by the US government and the European Commission and second, its role was not to provide advice and expertise to the European Commission”, the latter argued. We had stressed that the HLWG, as any with other expert groups and other similar entities, should be subject to the transparency requirements set up in the rules on Commission expert groups, including transparency about who participated.

Business setting the agenda? Commission won't say

When we asked about the “outside expertise” that had influenced the reports produced by the HLWG, we were told that the impact assessment of the proposed EU-US trade deal contained a summary of the expert evidence gathered since its inception . We were also directed to the Commission’s overview page for public consultations. There, we learned that more than 65% of the input to the first two consultations on the proposed EU-US deal came from companies and industry associations. But who were the 114 respondents? What are they lobbying for? Only a few contributions can be found in the Commission’s documents archive.

On 19 April, we filed another information request to find out more about the Commission’s contacts with industry lobby groups wanting to influence the transatlantic trade pact. We asked for a list of meetings with such lobby groups, minutes and related correspondence. The Commission responded that this "concerns a very large number of documents" and asked us to "narrow down the scope of your request, so as to reduce it to a more manageable amount of documents (for example would you want the correspondence/meeting reports with certain companies or associations?)". On 31 May, six weeks after our request and after several email exchanges, we were told that the Commission was “currently in the early stages of assessing your request and [...] not yet in a position to give a detailed estimate of the number of documents potentially covered.” The Commission official added: “Our best guess for the moment is that we will only have a first overview of the situation during the middle of June and will update you at that point.”

What are they trying to hide?

While still waiting for more information on what seems to be hundreds of documents related to big business lobbying around the EU-US trade deal, we were more lucky with an access to information request to the United States Trade Representative. Its office provided us with a list of “issue leads and experts” in the HLWG, listing three dozens officials from the US administration and the European Commission.

Looking at the list, we are not quite sure what the Commission was trying to hide in withholding it. The sobering fact that the authoritative-sounding “high level working groups on growth and jobs” was nothing but a bunch of unelected and unaccountable, notorious pro-free-trade bureaucrats from both sides of the Atlantic? The fact that the Commission does not seem to care about the labour and environmental impacts of the proposed trade deal? Because while the US side has two lead persons for “environment” and “labour” in the HLWG, the respective column remains tellingly empty on the EU-side.

The need for real transparency

While more and more MEPs and citizens groups demand that the looming EU-US negotiations be conducted in an open way, our disillusioning attempts to gain some basic information about who’s behind the launch of these negotiations show that the Commission doesn’t care about openness. It seems determined to bar the public from any kind of meaningful information about the world’s biggest trade deal ever to be negotiated. If MEPs are serious about their calls for more transparency and their duty to hold the Commission accountable, they are up against a serious smokescreen.

Attached files: 
Negotiations for the EU-US free trade deal have just been launched officially. Masterminded by the 'High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth' (HLWG), which was set up in 2011 and chaired by European Trade Commissioner Karel De Gucht and the then US Trade Representative Ron Kirk, in its final report, the Group not only recommended entering into the negotiations but went into some detail as to what should be put on the table – with the far-reaching aim of moving towards a “transatlantic marketplace”.The proposed deal is being closely followed by public interest groups concerned that the deal will open the floodgate to GMOs and shale gas (fracking) into Europe, threatens digital and labour rights and will empower corporations to legally challenge a wide range of regulations which they dislike. With all this and more at stake, Corporate Europe Observatory wanted to find out who sat on the group which recommended negotiations. Under EU access to information rules, on 4 March 2013, we requested the “full membership list of the High Level Working Group on Jobs and Growth”. In fact, we had to make numerous requests.A group without members, a report without authors?According to the Commission, the group, which has been active since 2011 and which has produced two reports, has no identifiable members (“a membership list of the HLWG does not exist”). The Commission also informed us that “several departments” have contributed to the discussion and the reports of the (memberless) group, but added that “there is no document containing the list of authors of the reports”. As there was no such document, the Commission claimed, our request did not fall under the EU’s freedom of information rules: “Unfortunately we are not in a position to provide you with the information requested.”We were also told that the HLWG was not “an expert group falling under the categories referred to in the register of expert groups and other similar entities”. Why not? “First, it is a joint working group set up by the US government and the European Commission and second, its role was not to provide advice and expertise to the European Commission”, the latter argued. We had stressed that the HLWG, as any with other expert groups and other similar entities, should be subject to the transparency requirements set up in the rules on Commission expert groups, including transparency about who participated.Business setting the agenda? Commission won't sayWhen we asked about the “outside expertise” that had influenced the reports produced by the HLWG, we were told that the impact assessment of the proposed EU-US trade deal contained a summary of the expert evidence gathered since its inception . We were also directed to the Commission’s overview page for public consultations. There, we learned that more than 65% of the input to the first two consultations on the proposed EU-US deal came from companies and industry associations. But who were the 114 respondents? What are they lobbying for? Only a few contributions can be found in the Commission’s documents archive.On 19 April, we filed another information request to find out more about the Commission’s contacts with industry lobby groups wanting to influence the transatlantic trade pact. We asked for a list of meetings with such lobby groups, minutes and related correspondence. The Commission responded that this "concerns a very large number of documents" and asked us to "narrow down the scope of your request, so as to reduce it to a more manageable amount of documents (for example would you want the correspondence/meeting reports with certain companies or associations?)". On 31 May, six weeks after our request and after several email exchanges, we were told that the Commission was “currently in the early stages of assessing your request and [...] not yet in a position to give a detailed estimate of the number of documents potentially covered.” The Commission official added: “Our best guess for the moment is that we will only have a first overview of the situation during the middle of June and will update you at that point.”What are they trying to hide?While still waiting for more information on what seems to be hundreds of documents related to big business lobbying around the EU-US trade deal, we were more lucky with an access to information request to the United States Trade Representative. Its office provided us with a list of “issue leads and experts” in the HLWG, listing three dozens officials from the US administration and the European Commission.Looking at the list, we are not quite sure what the Commission was trying to hide in withholding it. The sobering fact that the authoritative-sounding “high level working groups on growth and jobs” was nothing but a bunch of unelected and unaccountable, notorious pro-free-trade bureaucrats from both sides of the Atlantic? The fact that the Commission does not seem to care about the labour and environmental impacts of the proposed trade deal? Because while the US side has two lead persons for “environment” and “labour” in the HLWG, the respective column remains tellingly empty on the EU-side.The need for real transparencyWhile more and more MEPs and citizens groups demand that the looming EU-US negotiations be conducted in an open way, our disillusioning attempts to gain some basic information about who’s behind the launch of these negotiations show that the Commission doesn’t care about openness. It seems determined to bar the public from any kind of meaningful information about the world’s biggest trade deal ever to be negotiated. If MEPs are serious about their calls for more transparency and their duty to hold the Commission accountable, they are up against a serious smokescreen.
 
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

Polluters in Peru blog

CEO, Compassion in World Farming, ARC2020, Friends of the Earth Europe and Via Campesina co-publish a brochure spelling out the threats of a potental Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) to the future of good food and farming. Proponents of TTIP argue that it will increase trade leading to economic growth and jobs. But opponents have voiced many concerns, including its impact on food and farming on both sides of the Atlantic and its potential to underm ine a more sustainable food system. This brochure explains how TTIP will promote the industrial model of food and farming, further threatening the survival of small family farms, local food initiatives, standards for healthy and safe food, animal welfare, the environment, and public health.
The EU's Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) with Canada could unleash a wave of corporate lawsuits against Canada, the EU and its member states – including through the Canadian subsidiaries of US multinational corporations. This is the result of an in-depth analysis of CETA’s investor rights by Corporate Europe Observatory and 14 other environmental NGOs, citizens’ groups and workers unions from both sides of the Atlantic published today.
The EU Commissions' proposals on "regulatory cooperation" poses a threat to regulation that protect our health, the environment and our welfare - and they are a threat to democracy. Read the beginners guide from Corporate Europe Observatory, LobbyControl and Friends of the Earth Europe - now out in French, Italian, Portuguese, Greek, Finnish and Spanish.
Comment

(mis)Communicating TTIP

An internal document shows the Commission and Council have initiated a coordinated “information campaign” on TTIP. But one thing is missing.
A new draft EU directive currently looked at by the European Parliament wants to protect companies' "trade secrets", but uses definitions so large and exceptions so weak that it could seriously endanger the work of journalists, whistle-blowers, unionists and researchers as well as severely limiting corporate accountability. We publish a joint statement together with several other groups for the directive to be radically amended.
In the face of a disastrous Lima Outcome for local communities, their environments and the climate, many of the climate justice groups attending COP20 released a joint statement in response to what countries had agreed to, as well setting our own agenda.
The UN climate talks in Lima, COP20, have had the pervasive influence of business all over them. Yet despite this, business is still not happy with the influence it has on the talks and wants a greater role.
As the UN climate talks – COP20 – wrap up in Lima, CEO took part in a press conference to reflect on what two weeks of negotiations mean for climate justice and the road to Paris. Organised by the Institute of Climate Action and Theory, CEO was joined by with Michael Dorsey (board member of Sierra Club) and Jagoda Munic (Chair of Friends of the Earth International).

Alternative Trade Mandate

Corporate Europe Forum