This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Stakeholder contacts on TTIP (since 12 December 2014)'.




Ref. Ares(2015)4656112 - 28/10/2015
Ref. Ares(2017)3665978 - 20/07/2017
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Directorate E - Neighbouring countries, USA and Canada 
USA and Canada 
Brussels,  
USA and Canada  
Flash report: Conference in Slovenia: TTIP: what’s in for consumers? 
Dear All, 
I attended a TTIP conference in Ljubljana: “TTIP: what’s in for consumers?” 
 organised by the Slovenian Consumers’ Association (ZPS)  
Participants 
Opening panel: 
-   

  Mrs Breda Kutin, ZPS president  
-   
Art. 4.1b
, DG Trade  
-   
  Mrs Monique Goyens, BEUC director  
-   
  Mrs Mirjam Zdovc, Senior Advisor in the sector for internationalization, 
Ministry of Economic Development and Technology  
Active participants in the round table: 
-   

  Mrs Breda Kutin, ZPS president  
-   
Art. 4.1b
, DG Trade  
-   
  Mrs Monique Goyens, BEUC director  
-   
  Mrs Mojca Prelesnik, Information Commissioner   
-   
  Mr Alojz Grabnar, Director of the Chemical office of the Government of 
Slovenia  
-   

Art. 4.1b
, Slovenian Chamber of Commerce 
-   
  Mirjam Zdovc, Senior Advisor in the sector for internationalization, Ministry 
of Economic Development and Technology  
-   

Art. 4.1b
, Umanotera environmental NGO and the representative of 
the coalition against TTIP 
-   

  Mr. Igor Šoltes, MEP, opposition Greens 
Main points 
From the Government: 

Conditional support of TTIP and of the work of the Commission provided that: 1.
The EU doesn’t lower European standards in particular with respect to SPS 
matters: food (GMOs, hormones beef, chlorinated chicken), health etc; 2. No 
ISDS in TTIP: clear opposition to ISDS (the Government has sent a position paper 
to the Commission). The government representative said that they didn’t see 
the need for ISDS in TTIP. 

Very positive intervention from the Director of the Chemical office of the
Government of Slovenia who explained that no substances will be sold in the EU 
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 

without complying with the REACH requirements regardless of whether they 
can be marketed or used in the US.  

The representative of the Chamber of Commerce was also very supportive of
the agreement and he highlighted the benefits of TTIP for the business and 
Slovenia.  

Arguments against critics: the Commission is well aware of the red lines of these
negotiations and of the concerns expressed by the Slovenian Government. We
have no intention of lowering our standards or putting at risk the health of our
consumers for commercial benefits. On ISDS: the Commission is working on a
proposal that would reform the existing system. We are pursuing an in-depth
reform of the system because we believe it is necessary. We believe that ISDS
provisions are needed even with commercial partners like the US who has
amongst the most sophisticated domestic legal systems in the world because
they are often found to have failed to respect their international obligations.
From BEUC and ZPS: 
• Supportive of trade in general. Supportive of TTIP? To be seen!

Questioning rather than criticizing TTIP because the negotiations are still on
going and they have to be closely monitored. Expressed deep concerns about
the risks for the consumers that TTIP represents in particular with respect to
SPS matters: food, GMOS etc. Labelling of GMOs specifically raised:  consumers
need to be aware of what they buying – with TTIP there is a risk that consumers
might end up buying GMOs without knowing it! Electronic labelling has also
been raised.
• Transparency: admission of the efforts of the current Commission to become
more transparent; however not enough because there is no access to the
consolidated texts because of the refusal of the US to make public their
positions. Comparison with ACTA which failed in part because the negotiations
were not transparent. Big debate about the reading rooms.
• Very clear opposition to ISDS in TTIP: we don’t need ISDS in TTIP!
• Stressed that the US is very demanding with respect to agriculture and
expressed concerns that the Commission ‘might give in’ because of our
offensive interests like market access on public procurement.
• Critical towards regulatory cooperation.
• However recognition of some benefits of TTIP for consumers like for example:
more choice, lower prices, more jobs.
• TTIP instead of supporting good practices and improvement of competition
raises a thousand and one fears. However if one asks critical questions this does
not mean that one is against.
From the opposition to TTIP (Igor Šoltes, MEP,  Art. 4.1b
, Umanotera, NGOs, the 
audience): 

Credibility of the Commission: How can we trust you on GMOs and or other
issues if the negotiations are not totally transparent? 

TTIP as catalyst for a wider debate: Many people are sceptical about the US and
the direction in which Europe is heading. It wasn’t about the content of TTIP as 
such, but about environment, health, food etc.  

As a problem area it was highlighted the problem of chemicals and stressed that
it was as one of the barriers to trade in the negotiations in TTIP. REACH provides 
high standards in the field of chemicals on the old continent and this is not the 
case for the US.  

Concerns that endocrine disrupters could be part of TTIP negotiations and that
the on-going work within the EU on this matter is influenced by the US.  


•  MEP Igor Šoltes: No ISDS in TTIP. However after I explained the work that the 
Commission is currently doing to reform the system Mr  Šoltes was confident 
that  the “new ISDS” , which could be close to that one of a court system and 
based on the WTO model, could be eventually acceptable for the Greens.     
 
Summary: 
 
The discussions were focused mainly on TTIP. However on this occasion the Slovenian 
Consumers’ Association (ZPS) also celebrated its 25th anniversary. 
 
The debate was conducted in a friendly atmosphere. The main criticism circulated 
around expected issues of GMOs (very important issue in Slovenia), ISDS, secrecy, 
chemicals  and the 'little Europe' syndrome, i.e. the fear of competition with huge and 
powerful American companies. Each of the 4 opening panellists had 10 minutes 
presentation followed by a debate among the panellist and the audience. 
 
The debate was very balanced with arguments in favour and against TTIP. I explained 
what TTIP is and what it isn’t and I stressed the potential benefits of TTIP for the 
consumers and Slovenia in particular. To the question ‘who is behind this agreement 
and if someone is imposing TTIP on us/them’ I explained that the Commission is 
negotiating on behalf of the MS on the basis of a mandate that was given by the Council 
and which is public. The Commission remains accountable to the EP and to the Council 
and keeps them informed about the progress and the challenges of the negotiations. 
Once the negotiations concluded, the agreement has to be ratified by the EP and the 
MS, if it is a mixed agreement, and the vote can be equally in favour or against if the 
agreement is not good.  
 
The government representative was in principal supportive (support conditioned by the 
exclusion of ISDS and the Commission respecting the red lines concerning GMOs, 
health, food), while the ZPS president was balanced highlighting certain dangers as well 
as positives. The representative of the Chamber of Commerce and the Director of the 
Chemical Office of the Slovenian Government were in favour of TTIP and highlighted the 
benefits for the business and Slovenia.   
 
The discussion with the public was friendly. Almost all the questions were addressed to 
me to explain how regulatory cooperation would work, how can we be sure that there 
will be no GMOs, why do we need ISDS, etc. All in all, I think this was useful to explain 
how TTIP negotiations work and how they are conducted, but more communication is 
needed. This reassured the audience, but big scepticism remained, especially about ISDS 
and the impact of the agreement on consumers: how consumers can be sure that they 
know what is it in their plates? Do we really need TTIP?