Esta es la versión HTML de un fichero adjunto a una solicitud de acceso a la información 'TTIP lobbying'.




Ref. Ares(2015)4643276 - 28/10/2015
Ref. Ares(2017)3665888 - 20/07/2017
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Directorate-General for Trade 
Directorate E - Neighbouring countries, USA and Canada 
USA and Canada 
Brussels,  
USA and Canada  
Meeting Report  
Meeting CM - Environmental NGOs - TTIP 
Participants: 
Pieter de Pous (European Environmental Bureau-EEB), Jos Dings and Cecile Tobeau 
(European Federation for Transport and Environment-T&E) 
Commissioner Cecilia Malmstron, Catrine Norrgard,  Art. 4.1b
Summary of main issues discussed 
Good and constructive discussion. Certainly illustrates how some of the civil society 
representatives are following in detail the negotiations, becoming experts on the issues of 
their interest and, where possible, engaging constructively in the discussions.  
ISDS 
• Both EEB and T&E underlined the opposition to the inclusion of ISDS in TTIP.
They highlighted that this is an issue that is so much politicised that it will pollute
the negotiations and further ratification process if it remains included
• While recognised that some of the proposals to reform the current system are
"going in the right direction", these organisations would still prefer not to have
ISDS included in TTIP and the current status quo. Their view is that reforms
proposed do not seem to address the fundamental flaw of this system, that is the
fact that foreign investors are given more privileges than domestic firms/EU
citizens.  And that a uniform ISDS EU-wide system will actually significantly
expand the % of EU GDP currently not covered by such type of agreements (they
estimate that 93% of EU GDP not covered)
• CM noted that if no reform is undertaken then the already existing ISDS
provisions in existing agreements will remain there and that we are losing an
important opportunity to reform profoundly all the system at the same time. CM
enquired about alternatives.
• Both EEB and T&E stated their preference for letting US suffer the consequences
of potentially less foreign direct investment (due to the absence of ISDS) and that
EU companies that want to take the risk to invest in the US anyways then they
have to take insurance and also make a positive decision to take such risk. Also,
both organisations favour the setting up of an international system (in line with
Commission européenne/Europese Commissie, 1049 Bruxelles/Brussel, BELGIQUE/BELGIË - Tel. +32 22991111 

recent proposals) and, while they acknowledge this will take significant time to 
set up, they believe that a reformed ISDS system in the EU will kill the idea of 
the international system, in particular noting that major trade agreements such as 
TPP or TTIP are in the making. 
• Further pushed on their opinion on the ideas put forward by CM at INTA, they
underlined their preference (is a "must") to first exhaust all the possibilities of
domestic systems. Putting a cap on the salaries of arbitrators is also an important
element in their view (and gave the example of arbitrators under the WHO
arbitration system).
Regulatory cooperation 
• EEB and T&E expressed their concern about the imbalance of the discussions in
this area, supported by recent statements from Ambassador Froman. They believe
the EU has a shopping list which is longer than the US one that the EU has
nothing to give except broader US influence on our own regulatory processes (ie
while EU upcoming reforms will increase transparency of
implementing/delegating acts, the US will never put to IA congressional bills, for
example). Also concerned about lack of understanding about US priorities in this
area
• Major concern relating to the work on equivalency and standards:
o
Both NGOs believe that negotiations are focussed on "small things" (ie
seat anchorage systems) which by definition are not equivalent because
designed for different markets.
o
EU has not provided an answer to a fundamental question: what is the
process for negotiating the equivalency of standards, who is going to take
such a decision, and is this not a way of circumventing the well-
functioning international systems of standard-setting, where the EU is
leading the process in a large number of instances? (NB: clearly
something we have to integrate in our current discussions on regulatory
implementation and communications)

o
Difficult to understand why the EU is pivoting to the one player that is not
active in the development of global standards, such in the automotive
sector (gave example of US action in the context of the standard setting
for tyres in UNECE).
o
Noted also the risk of "paralysis by analysis" if we multiply the number of
instances where trading partners can be consulted about our own domestic
regulatory processes
General 
• T&E also presented an idea they are currently working on to solve partially what
they consider is an imbalance between the TSD chapter and the rest of the
agreement. They propose to make environment, labour, health and consumer
rights an integral part of each chapter, in particular sectoral ones (ie an article on
CSR; etc). This means that at least one provision highlight what is of importance
for these constituencies in specific chapters but also is subject to dispute
settlement (sanctions). This will complement the most detailed provisions on
labour and environment in the specific TSD chapter.


• Both organisations also highlighted the basic problem of trust civil society has as
regards negotiations.
Art. 4.1a and Art. 4.3


Document Outline