How Much Is Enough? Explaining the Continuous Transparency Conflict in TTIP

Abstract

Transparency has been a central issue in the debate regarding the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), especially on the side of the European Union (EU). The lack of transparency in the negotiating process has been one of the main criticisms of civil society organizations (CSOs). The European Commission (EC) has tried to gain support for the negotiations through various 'transparency initiatives'. Nonetheless, criticism by CSOs with regard to TTIP in general and the lack of transparency in specific remained prevalent. In this article, we explain this gap between various transparency initiatives implemented by the EC in TTIP and the expectations on the side of European CSOs. We perform a content analysis of position papers on transparency produced by CSOs, mainly in response to a European Ombudsman consultation, complemented by a number of official documents and targeted interviews. We find that the gap between the TTIP transparency initiatives and the expectations of CSOs can be explained by different views on what constitutes legitimate trade governance, and the role of transparency, participation, and accountability herein.

Secrecy, Efficiency, Transparency in EU Negotiations: Conflicting Paradigms?

“…Consequently, the need to ensure transparency has figured high on the agenda. Numerous NGOs have stressed how transparency in the negotiations needs to be ensured, since the TTIP would impact domestic regulations, standards and safeguards both in the US and the EU, as well as future choices in permanent regulatory cooperation (Gheyle & De Ville, 2017). Ultimately, a failure to commit to more openness in TTIP negotiations will not only result in growing public opposition to TTIP as a whole but also create a real risk of a biased and flawed agreement (see Corporate Europe Observatory, 2017).…”

EU Institutional Politics of Secrecy and Transparency in Foreign Affairs

“…Agreements like the AntiCounterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) or the trade negotiations with the US (TTIP) or Canada (CETA) attracted unseen levels of public mobilisation (see also Gheyle & De Ville, 2017). A prominent bone of contention concerns the secretive nature through which many of these initiatives originated and the lack of transparency in their negotiations.…”

“…Leino (2017) shows that the logics of secrecy and transparency are being applied both in legislation and in foreign policy proper and often the implications of the latter for EU fundamental rights are just as important as such issues that are addressed in EU legislative acts. Similarly, Gheyle and De Ville (2017) emphasise the growing mobilisation of civil society in trade negotiations due to the regulatory nature of contemporary trade policy. Whilst there is a growing demand for more access to information in foreign affairs issues, participation by civil society is yet only emerging.…”

“…Rosén & Stie (2017) question whether the EP's pursuit to be informed by the Council is contributing to public deliberation and better parliamentary oversight in EU foreign affairs. With respect to public access to documents, Gheyle & De Ville (2017) argue that disagreements between the civil society organisations and the Commission on the level of transparency is partly explained by the definitions of transparency applied. While for the civil society organisation transparency is important as a stepping stone to participation, the Commission implements transparency policies merely to inform the institutions and the public.…”

“…Trade negotiations as an exclusive competency put the emphasis on the Commission to provide transparency (Coremans, 2017;Gheyle & De Ville, 2017), whereas negotiations in areas of mixed competences involve both Commission and Council. This inevitably affects the need for information exchange between Council and EP (Rosén & Stie, 2017).…”