Leaked US TTIP proposals threaten European Standardisation System

The European Commission aims to conclude the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership Agreement (TTIP) negotiations by the end of 2016. Yet, the consolidated negotiation texts released by Greenpeace Netherlands on 2 May reveal that there is still a substantial discrepancy between the US and the EU positions, and more so than what European stakeholders initially suspected.

Since 2014, ECOS has expressed concerns about TTIP, in particular to the chapter on ‘Technical Barriers to Trade’ (TBT), which risks jeopardising the hard-fought – though not yet fully implemented – principles of transparency and inclusiveness in the European Standardisation System (ESS). The leaked texts confirm the divergences between the two parties and bear significant potential consequences for the planned EU-US cooperation in standardisation.

In particular, five key proposals risk negatively impacting the European Standardisation System:

• The US requests the EU to not only allow, but also invite, them to comment on any draft standardisation requests issued by the European Commission and on any draft standard deliverable. They describe how US participation should take place and how comments should be handled, both prior to and during the standard’s development. The US further suggests that each party complies with the US traditional public ‘notice and comment’ procedure, presenting significant differences to how the ESS operates, especially in terms of stakeholder involvement and guiding principles;
• The US insists on involving US experts during the preparation of European standards in support of EU technical regulations. For instance, one party could propose a retrospective review of the other party’s technical regulation and suggest amendments, such as the introduction of a reference to specific standards, in particular, international ones, that were not initially referred to in the party’s legislation. This gives clear leeway for the US to propose the inclusion of potentially unsupported standards and/or to promote international standards in support of EU legislation. Considering the lack of inclusiveness in international standardisation as compared to European standardisation, this deal is unacceptable.
• The US suggests establishing procedures to recognise equivalent standards used in support of technical regulation, along with mechanisms facilitating the acceptance of the results of each party’s Conformity Assessment (CA). They propose aligning the governance structure of each party’s CA, e.g. by proposing non-discrimination towards each party’s CAs and Conformity Assessment Bodies (CAB), based on their location or the conditions for accreditation. This simply ignores existing differences in founding principles and systems of the EU-US CA;
• The US proposes that technical regulation and standards should be discussed if one party considers that it ‘might adversely affect trade’. Furthermore, these discussions and exchange of information need to remain confidential. The US underlines the need to reduce costs of unnecessary regulatory differences by achieving a level of health, safety, and environmental protection that each side ‘deems appropriate’, otherwise ‘meeting legitimate regulatory objectives’. This leaves clear space for undermining environmental standards: First, it is evident that this will not, in any way, allow for respecting the ESS principles of participation, inclusiveness and transparency. Second, it opens the door to challenge any standard taking the benefit of the public into consideration, on the basis of the negative effects it may have on trade;
• The US further suggests establishing a TBT Committee which would be responsible for resolving any concerns which may arise from the TBT chapter. This would provide a regular forum to exchange information on each party’s technical regulations and standards, with a view to enhance their cooperation in this field. This poses a strong risk of excluding non-governmental experts and third parties from the process, as they would only be consulted if and when the committee deems it necessary and appropriate.

The objective of the 13^th round of negotiations which ended in New York on April 29^th was to consolidate as many textual proposals as possible and to make progress on several sectoral chapters. The next round of negotiations, expected to take place in Brussels in July, will aim to pursue discussions on ongoing consolidation efforts and to limit the number of open issues, which will be ultimately resolved at a political level.