Brussels, 02/05/2016 (Agence Europe) - The Commission, which is largely unmoved by the sensationalist disclosure by the environmental NGO Greenpeace, on Monday 2 May, of two thirds of the classified documents on the free-trade negotiations between the EU and the US (TTIP) and dating from shortly after the 12th round of negotiations in March, has challenged the conclusions drawn by Greenpeace, describing the risks to the climate, the environment and consumers highlighted by the NGO as “incorrect ideas”.
“There seem to be a number of incorrect ideas doing the rounds” regarding the “so-called leaks” on TTIP, European Commissioner for Trade Cecilia Malmström stated on her blog on Monday morning. First of all, she explained that the documents published by Greenpeace simply reflected the negotiating positions. “There was nothing in the leaked documents which was not known”, added Commission First Vice-President Frans Timmermans in the afternoon.
“Contrary to what many seem to believe, consolidated texts are not the same thing as an outcome. They reflect each side's negotiating position, nothing else. And it shouldn't come as a surprise that there are areas where the EU and the US have different views. There are areas in the TTIP negotiations where we have come a long way, but in others we are simply not in agreement. It is only normal that both parties in a negotiation want to achieve as many of their own objectives as possible. That does not mean that the other side gives in to those demands. That does not mean that the parties will meet halfway. In areas where we are too far apart in a negotiation, we will simply not agree”, Malmström commented on her blog, describing the alarmist headlines published on Monday morning as a “storm in a teacup”.
Malmström went on to point out that since 2015, the Commission has published the EU's positions in each area of the negotiations as well as progress reports following each round. “The positions of the EU are well known and nothing new”, she stressed.
For instance, the EU's latest proposal on regulatory coherence, which was presented in February, includes references to the 'precautionary principle' and stresses the public consultation procedures which are well established in the EU and open to all stakeholders, the commissioner stressed.
The fact that the consolidated text it leaked makes no reference to the precautionary principle used by the EU is Greenpeace's central criticism, whilst it also deplores the fact that the American risk-based approach to products is mentioned several times. This, it argues, could weaken the capacity of the European regulators to take preventative measures against products they consider to be dangerous.
Some of Greenpeace's interpretations are “completely wrong”, the European negotiator-in-chief, Ignacio Garcia Bercero, said on Monday, adding that the precautionary principle was included in an EU text published in March. “We have tabled a proposal on regulatory cooperation which explicitly refers to the precautionary principle. There are even several references to this principle and we have no intention of dropping them during the negotiations”, he stressed. Bercero went on to reiterate that the EU had been “very clear” on the fact that “but it would not accept any agreement which would involve any change of any kind to our GMO rules”.
On her blog, Malmström also refuted the idea that industry has better access to the negotiating positions of the EU than other stakeholders. “We take into account submissions by industry, but exactly the same applies to submissions by trade unions, consumer groups health or environmental organisations - all of which are represented in the advisory group that regularly meets our negotiating team”, the commissioner stressed.
“No EU trade agreement will ever lower our level of protection of consumers, or food safety, or of the environment. Trade agreements will not change laws on GMOs, or how to produce safe beef, or how to protect the environment. Any EU trade deal can only change regulation by making it stronger. We might agree with a partner that rules on the safety of medicines would be tougher than before, for example, but never weaker. No trade deal will limit our ability to make new rules to protect citizens or environment in the future”, Malmström stressed, insisting that she was “simply not in the business of lowering standards”.
The fact remains that the texts leaked by Greenpeace on Monday, which reveal American positions which have remained top-secret until now, highlight the imbalance of the TTIP negotiations, in which the EU has made far more proposals than the United States, whose offer is, at this stage, a long way from satisfying the offensive interests of the EU, particularly in terms of public procurement and certain services markets such as maritime services, or on geographical protection. Furthermore, this “leak” of documents by Greenpeace “is not good for trust” between the two sides, as Bercero himself said. (Original version in French by Emmanuel Hagry)