US, EU make progress, but no deadline for trade pact

U.S. and European Union trade negotiators said Friday that they made progress this week during their fifth round of talks, but acknowledged there is still no deadline to complete a final deal.

Dan Mullaney, chief negotiator for the United States, and Ignacio Garcia Bercero, the EU’s top negotiator on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership, provided no indication of where the negotiations actually stand after nearly a year of discussions.

{mosads}“We’re at round five,” Mullaney said.

But he reiterated in his remarks that the goal is for a comprehensive deal in an “expeditious timeframe.”

“We are where we should be after 11 months,” Bercero said.

To that end, Mullaney said that while it was a “very good week” of talks, the discussions are steadily moving forward with the expectation that more progress will be made in the months ahead.

“We do have our work cut out for us,” he said. 

“The genuinely ambitious and comprehensive agreement we seek will require a lot of creativity and will require a lot of persistence.”

He said continued conversations this week with a wide range of stakeholders have helped establish priorities and better steer the approach to the negotiations.

Harmonizing the regulatory environments of the world’s two largest trading partners remains a central focus.

“We’re basically looking for the same thing, which is a process that results in more compatible regulations in the sense that there are not unnecessary differences in those regulations and standards and that they are not dictated by levels of protection,” Mullaney said.

He emphasized that the regulatory frameworks on both sides of the Atlantic need to be adjusted in ways that don’t create unnecessary barriers to trade.

Mullaney and Bercero were adamant that the massive trade deal would not change existing U.S. or EU regulatory law and would instead streamline its differences.

“In no case can it compromise the layers of protection that are reflected in European Union or U.S. legislation,” Bercero said.

“It has been quite impressive the amount of time and work that has been put forward by regulators to begin to identify areas of potential commonalities,” he said.

Bercero said he hopes that the work done so far will allow negotiators to identify specific regulatory objectives.

He said no size fits all and that each sector has specific issues to be tackled.

Overall, Bercero said he is pleased by the talks that are designed to “progressively build what, after all, is a highly ambitious undertaking.”

He said the teams took steps forward on market access and regulatory and rules issues and that the week’s talks included intense discussions on labor and the environment.

Both said that there is ongoing work on the possibility of adding an energy-sector chapter, which Bercero called an issue of “global significance” and one upon which the EU attaches a “great importance.”

On financial services, Bercero said that while the U.S. and the EU remain at odds over how to harmonize regulations, he said it can be done “in no way that weakens the financial services protections” in either country.

Another major issues revolves around hormone-treated beef, which is prohibited under EU law, and genetically modified organisms (GMOs), which are allowed there in small amounts.

Bercero was clear that it wouldn’t be prudent for either the EU or the United States to change their respective food safety laws for a trade agreement.

“Of course that doesn’t mean that we aren’t ready to look into how the rules are applied in practice,” he said.

“But I think it’s very difficult to imagine any Democratic country could go to our parliaments and suggest that a food safety law can be changed because of a trade agreement. So I think that has been very clear from the very beginning of these discussions.”

Mullaney said though that part of the negotiations is looking at the World Trade Organization obligations to base decisions on science and risk assessment of the GMOs and the biotech situation.

“But we’re looking at how the rule operates, not the regulation itself.”