TTIP Still Has Some Life, Analysts Say
Although the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) sits dormant, U.S. industry should reignite efforts to convince the public that concluding the deal would pay dividends for both parties, Rock Creek Global Advisors Managing Director Michael Smart said during a Feb. 24 panel. “For all the discussion, one thing has not happened,” Smart said. “The administration certainly had in its ability to say, ‘We are calling off TTIP negotiations, or ending them.’ It hasn’t done that.” Panel participants agreed there is still at least a glimmer of hope for conclusion of the deal, but Smart said that U.S. industry must first find a rhythm in its advocacy for trade and other issues with the new Trump administration. While certain political liabilities come with taking a stance on hot-button issues, trade associations can help shield businesses from unwanted exposure, and industry has somewhat skirted the national trade debate in favor of pushing regulatory and tax reform, Smart said.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
If your job depends on informed compliance, you need International Trade Today. Delivered every business day and available any time online, only International Trade Today helps you stay current on the increasingly complex international trade regulatory environment.
Concluding TTIP and a post-Brexit U.S.-United Kingdom trade deal wouldn’t be mutually exclusive, and the latter is logical because the UK will need to reconstitute several trade relationships across the globe, EU Ambassador to the U.S. David O’Sullivan said during the panel. U.S. Dairy Export Council CEO Tom Vilsack said the U.S. and EU need to devote more attention to agricultural differences to “maximize” the bilateral trade relationship, which O’Sullivan during the panel said are resolvable. The White House didn't comment.
But Vilsack, who served as agriculture secretary in the Obama administration, said he is not too optimistic about concluding TTIP in the near future because of the several outstanding agricultural issues, such as biotech approvals, hormone-fed meat, and geographical indications (GIs). GIs were among the issues the Obama administration and European Commission wrestled with in bilateral TTIP discussions (see 1610070025). “These are very deep-seated concerns,” Vilsack said. “Plus, I’m not sure that we know whether or not it’s a one and done, or whether there are other nations that may consider the opportunity” of joining. O’Sullivan said that during the last rounds of discussions, the U.S. and EU both hit roadblocks on regulatory interchangeability, because of fear that compromises would be viewed as surrendering autonomy over their administrative regimes.
Any forthcoming efforts to restart TTIP negotiations would come at a time that the interagency Section 301 Committee is considering whether to raise tariffs on certain EU food, motorcycle and fiber products in response to allegations of U.S. producers being unfairly crowded out of an EU tariff-rate quota for non-hormone-fed beef (see 1702150046). The EU and Office of the U.S. Trade Representative are currently undertaking technical discussions to resolve the issue, O’Sullivan said during the panel, emphasizing that the European Commission intends to honor the process of the World Trade Organization Dispute Settlement Body, which in 1999 authorized the U.S. to impose $116.8 million in annual retaliatory tariffs in response to EU discrimination against U.S. beef. The U.S. began phasing out associated tariffs in 2012 after reaching a bilateral memorandum of understanding with the EU in 2009 (see 09051405). Vilsack said other nations have taken such a large piece of the EU’s TRQ for non-hormone-fed beef that U.S. beef producers now don’t know whether they’d be better off seeking an expanded EU TRQ or longer-term redress at the WTO.