The release of leaked documents from negotiations of the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) captured news headlines last week, but the materials tell us little that we didn’t already know. The documents mainly confirmed that scant progress has been made. I’ve already gone on record as skeptical that negotiators will secure a TTIP deal, even in principle, this year. So instead I want to offer two suggestions as talks move forward.
1) Boost Transparency
One of the reasons the content of the leaked documents fell short of novel was because European negotiators already release the texts of their own proposals along with summaries of what is discussed in each negotiating round. And we pretty much know what US negotiators are seeking because it will be similar to what they sought in the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement. Still, I am grateful to the Dutch chapter of Greenpeace for releasing the documents.
Even though we know quite a bit about the negotiations, I wish the US Trade Representative’s (USTR) office would be as forthcoming as their EU counterparts. Doing so would allow developing countries to better understand what is being negotiated and how it might affect their interests. That, in turn, would allow them to raise any concerns before the negotiations are completed. It could also help the United States ward off accusations of negotiating secret backroom deals. Fundamentally, however, progress on regulatory cooperation, which primarily involves domestic regulation that just happens to affect trade, is going to require far more openness and transparency to find acceptance with the voting public.
2) Shift Efforts to a Global Deal on Nuisance Tariffs
While I haven’t found any shocking revelations about plans to dilute food safety regulations or allow corporations to run amok in the documents that I’ve read, their content reveals just how far apart the two parties remain. And if the negotiations will produce little more than tariff elimination, why not try to do something similar at the global level and get rid of all the really low tariffs that create red tape and opportunities for corruption?
It’s a long shot, but I would suggest shifting some of the energy and resources behind the current TTIP talks to refocus on achieving a global agreement to eliminate “nuisance tariffs,” those below 2-3 percent that cost more to collect than they generate in revenue. That would create gains for everyone, including developing countries, as well as give a boost to the multilateral trading system.
The United States and European Union have been trying to negotiate regulatory cooperation agreements for more than two decades with limited success (see slide two of this presentation). What the EU tactical summary makes clear is that this latest attempt isn’t looking very different—just as I expected when I wrote my recent paper asking “how much 'mega' in the mega-regional” trade agreements. So if there ever is a TTIP, despite what the negotiators claim, it is likely to be TTIP-light. While Cato’s Dan Ikenson explains here why a scaled back agreement would be worthwhile, maybe it’s also time to think about some alternatives.
CGD blog posts reflect the views of the authors, drawing on prior research and experience in their areas of expertise.
CGD is a nonpartisan, independent organization and does not take institutional positions.
