Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament and the European Economic and Social Committee - A stronger EU-US Partnership and a more open market for the 21st century
Date: 2005-05-18
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: United States, cooperation policy, export monitoring, innovation, international market, trade regulations

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 18.5.2005 
COM(2005) 196 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL, THE 
EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL 
COMMITTEE 

A stronger EU-US Partnership and a more open market for the 21st century 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM 

The “EU-US Declaration on Strengthening our Economic Partnership”, agreed at the 
2004  EU-US  Summit,  called  upon  transatlantic  partners  to  develop  a  forward-
looking strategy to enhance the economic relationship between the US and the EU. 
The  Declaration  invited  stakeholders  from  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  to  assess  the 
bilateral economic relationship and explore means to eliminate trade, regulatory and 
investment obstacles. 

On the EU side, a public on-line consultation was launched on 30 September 2004. 
The  business  community,  environmental  and  consumer  organisations,  trade  unions 
and other interested groups and individuals were invited to provide their views on the 
obstacles  they  face  when  trading  or  investing  in  each  other’s  markets.  Interested 
parties  were  also  given  the  opportunity  to  present  their  views  at  two  stakeholder 
conferences organised by the Commission. 

Following  stakeholders’  feedback,  the  Commission  identified  areas  that  should  be 
tackled  in  cooperation  with  the  US.  The  initiatives  proposed  by  the  Commission 
form a package designed to boost EU-US trade and investment in three areas: 

–  regulating for a transatlantic market; 

–  the knowledge and innovation dynamic; 

–  smarter, safer borders for swifter trade and investment. 

With respect to delivery mechanisms, the Commission proposes a mix of binding and 
non-binding  approaches,  across  sectors,  with  the  aim  of  giving  new  impetus  and 
quality  to  the  EU-US  economic  partnership  while  reflecting  our  commitment  to 
promote sustainable development. This would include the conclusion of an ambitious 
approach to promote more effective regulatory co-operation.  

The  ex-ante  evaluation  of  any  subsequent  binding  commitments  would  be 
undertaken  in  accordance  with  the  Communication  on  Impact  Assessment1. 
Moreover,  a  Sustainability  Impact  Assessment  would  be  carried  out  in  conformity 
with 
this 
Communication and requiring a mandate from the Council. 

for  Commission  proposals 

the  applicable 

resulting 

rules 

from 

The  Communication  also  sets  out  a  number  of  proposals  to  strengthen  the  broader 
political architecture of the transatlantic partnership. 

1 

COM(2002) 276. 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
                                                 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

2. 

3. 

Introduction .................................................................................................................. 4 

Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 4 

Initiatives to make the transatlantic market work better .............................................. 6 

3.1. 

Regulating for a transatlantic market ........................................................................... 6 

3.1.1.  Regulatory policy co-operation.................................................................................... 6 

3.1.2. 

Investment facilitation.................................................................................................. 8 

3.1.3.  Competition policy and enforcement ........................................................................... 8 

3.1.4.  Government procurement............................................................................................. 8 

3.1.5.  Aviation........................................................................................................................ 9 

3.1.6.  Maritime transport services and maritime affairs ........................................................ 9 

3.1.7.  Financial markets ......................................................................................................... 9 

3.1.8.  Free movement of business people ............................................................................ 10 

3.1.9.  Mutual recognition of professional qualifications ..................................................... 10 

3.2. 

The knowledge and innovation dynamic ................................................................... 11 

3.2.1.  New technologies ....................................................................................................... 11 

3.2.1.1.  Information and communication technologies (ICT): regulation for innovation....... 11 

3.2.1.2.  Space .......................................................................................................................... 11 

3.2.2. 

Intellectual property ................................................................................................... 11 

3.2.3.  Research and Development........................................................................................ 12 

3.2.4.   Energy ........................................................................................................................ 13 

3.2.5.  Education and vocational training.............................................................................. 13 

3.3. 

Smarter, safer borders for swifter trade and investment ............................................ 13 

4. 

Delivering the economic goals................................................................................... 14 

4.1. 

The policy tool box .................................................................................................... 14 

5. 

5.1. 

5.2. 

6. 

The broader architecture of EU-US relations............................................................. 16 

The New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) – an independent assessment....................... 16 

Giving EU-US relations the political profile to match our ambitions ....................... 17 

Conclusions and recommendations............................................................................ 18 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION 

In  fulfilment  of 
the  “EU-US  Declaration  on  Strengthening  our  Economic 
Partnership”  (henceforth  the  “Dromoland  declaration”)  agreed  at  the  2004  EU-US 
Summit, this Communication sets out a package of proposed initiatives to boost EU-
US  trade  and  investment.  These  initiatives  cover  regulatory  co-operation,  services, 
(including  aviation  and  financial  markets), 
investment,  competition,  public 
procurement,  innovation  and  new  technologies  and  the  trade/security  interface.  A 
framework  which  commits  both  partners  to  put  in  place  the  necessary  measures  to 
deliver  on  commitments  is  proposed,  across  sectors,  with  the  aim  of  giving  new 
impetus  and  quality  to  the  EU-US  economic  partnership  and  working  towards  the 
creation  of  a  barrier-free  transatlantic  market.  This  is  designed  to  provide  the 
respective  regulatory  authorities  with  the  necessary  instruments  to  promote  co-
operation and prevent regulatory problems from emerging. Political oversight will be 
helpful  in  ensuring  that  commitments  to  deliver  results  are  met.  The  Commission 
proposes therefore that an Economic Declaration be agreed with the US at the 2005 
EU-US Summit to begin working on the above areas. The option of taking forward a 
number  of  them  via  binding  agreements  should  be  retained.  This  Communication 
also sets out a number of proposals to strengthen the broader political architecture of 
the transatlantic partnership. 

2. 

RATIONALE 

Economic  relations  are  the  bedrock  of  an  EU-US  relationship  whose  scope  is 
constantly  widening.  Their  very  health  has  been  instrumental  in  creating  the 
conditions which have allowed transatlantic political relations to flourish over recent 
decades. 

Leaders  at  the  Dromoland  EU-US  Summit  of  2004  agreed  to  look  for  cooperative 
means and best practices to enhance economic growth, job creation and innovation, 
and called on stakeholders on both sides of the Atlantic to contribute ideas on how to 
further transatlantic economic integration. They aimed to adopt at the 2005 Summit a 
forward-looking  strategy  to  enhance  the  EU-US  economic  partnership.  A  three 
month  consultation  of  EU  stakeholders  ran  until  31  December  2004.  Stakeholder 
responses provide a number of constructive ideas. Most replies focus on the need to 
eliminate  non-tariff  barriers,  notably  matters  relating  to  regulation  and  trade  and 
security1.  Stakeholders  also  identify  further  progress  on  the  Lisbon  Agenda  as  a 
prerequisite  for  the  reinvigoration  of  the  transatlantic  economic  relationship.  This 
Communication sets out proposals for a joint EU-US strategy to strengthen economic 
integration.  It  also  takes  into  account  options  to  enhance  the  political  structures 
underpinning EU-US relations. 

1 

See  http://europa.eu.int/comm/external_relations/us/consultation/results/index.htm  for  stakeholders’ 
contributions. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                 
The EU and the US share the largest bilateral trade and investment relationship in the 
world.  In  2003  the  overall  volume  of  EU-US  trade  in  goods  and  services  totalled 
some €600 billion. While trade-related disputes may grab headlines, the reality is that 
they  affect  under  2%  of  this  volume.  An  increasingly  marked  feature  of  EU-US 
economic  relations  is  the  huge  flows  of  Foreign  Direct  Investment  (FDI)  in  both 
directions. By 2003, these flows had amounted to €1.4 trillion in total stocks of two-
way investment (€766 billion of EU FDI in the US, and around €640 billion of US 
FDI  in  Europe).  As  many  as  14  million  jobs  in  the  EU  and  the  US  depend  on 
transatlantic  commercial  ties.  Competitiveness  should  be  further  enhanced  by 
reducing  the  cost  of  business  inputs,  promoting  the  regulatory  co-operation  on  the 
international stage, promoting intellectual property rights, and working to open third 
country markets. 

Despite the scale of bilateral economic ties, many elements continue to impinge on 
trade and investment2. An improved regulatory framework has an important role to 
play in strengthening these ties and increasing trade opportunities. Firstly, the costs 
of regulatory impediments in many areas remain considerable. Incremental progress 
on  these  impediments  could  result  in  big  sectoral  gains  for  business  and  the 
consumer. Secondly, we need to underpin the foundations of growth and innovation 
by  making  better  progress  towards  the  development  and  integration  of  our 
knowledge-based  economies.  Thirdly,  both  the EU  and  the  US  are  confronted  with 
serious internal and external economic challenges. The US has high budget and trade 
deficits; the EU must address its disappointing growth rates. Finally, both the EU and 
the  US  must  face  up  to  ever  sharper  competitive  pressures  from  strongly  growing 
economies such as China and India. 

The  EU  has  responded  to  these  challenges  via  the  renewed  Lisbon  Strategy,  which 
foresees  closer  integration  and  a  fresh  drive  for  international  regulatory  and 
administrative  convergence3,  maintaining  the  long-standing  goal  of  sustainable 
development.  Deepening  the  EU-US  economic  partnership  thus  serves  the  broad 
innovation,  while 
objective  of  boosting 
simultaneously stimulating trade and investment. A number of these issues relate to 
sustainable  development  in  all  its  dimensions  (i.e.  environmental,  social  and 
economic aspects). Sustainable development should therefore have a prominent place 
in the EU-US economic partnership. 

jobs  and  growth  and  promoting 

Concluding  the  WTO  Doha  Development  Agenda  is  the  overriding  priority  for 
sustainable global growth. The EU and the US are working together to this end. An 

2 

3 

European  Commission  Report  on  US  Barriers  to  Trade  and  Investment,  2004  -  see  http://trade-
info.cec.eu.int/doclib/docs/2005/march/tradoc_121929.pdf. 
The Commission’s Communication to the European Council of 2.2.2005, “Working together for growth 
and jobs – A new start for the Lisbon Strategy” states under the headline “Growth and jobs: the global 
dimension” (page 19): “There should be a fresh drive for regulatory and administrative convergence at 
the international level, in particular in transatlantic trade relations. Ensuring that standards converge 
as widely as possible at the international level – whether this is with our major trading partners such as 
the USA or with rapidly growing markets in Asia such as China, India and with other countries in the 
EU  neighbourhood  –  holds  out  the  potential  for  significant  cost  reductions  and  productivity  growth. 
The Commission will actively pursue this agenda.” - COM(2005) 24. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
                                                 
EU-US  Free  Trade  Agreement  (FTA)  would  risk  undermining  this  multilateral 
priority.  The  WTO  is  the  right  forum  for  talks  about  tariff  reductions.  Bilateral 
economic  initiatives  between  the  EU  and  the  US  should  be  complementary  to  the 
WTO  process  and  address  the  main  obstacles,  which  are  essentially  regulatory  in 
nature. An EU-US FTA  would  not address  this core difficulty in EU-US economic 
relations. 

Although  macroeconomic  issues  of  common  interest  to  the  EU  and  the  US  are 
discussed  in  various  multilateral  fora,  a  bilateral  exchange  of  views  on  such  issues 
could  help  to  develop  a  shared  analysis.  This  would  strengthen  the  overall  EU-US 
partnership  and  facilitate  consensus-building  on  macroeconomic  issues  in  the 
multilateral fora. 

3. 

INITIATIVES TO MAKE THE TRANSATLANTIC MARKET WORK BETTER 

3.1. 

Regulating for a transatlantic market 

3.1.1.  Regulatory policy co-operation 

As the transatlantic economy has grown, it has become increasingly clear that it is no 
longer  possible  to  satisfy  demands  for  fairer  competition  and  a  high  level  of 
consumer and environmental protection without a broadening of regulatory horizons. 
This realisation has led to more frequent and intensive contacts between EU and US 
regulators,  including  competition  authorities.  Such  contacts  are  important  because 
regulation  in  a  vacuum  can  cause  economic  distortions  and  even  harm.  However, 
democratic legitimacy and accountability demand that regulatory autonomy and the 
highest  standards  of  health,  safety,  environmental  and  consumer  protection  be 
maintained. 

It  is  widely  acknowledged  that  the  transatlantic  market  –  by  and  large  –  functions 
smoothly.  The  sheer  size  of  daily  movements  in  terms  of  goods  trade  and  capital 
flows is evidence of this. But in some areas reinforced dialogue and co-operation, in 
particular prior to regulating, is needed to avoid divergences in approach between the 
EU  and  the  US  which  may  increase  costs  and  inhibit  growth  potential  while  no 
longer serving consumers, business, or other interested parties well. 

While  there  have  been  important  successes  in  EU-US  regulatory  co-operation, 
problems remain. The challenge is to find a mode of regulatory co-operation which 
instils in regulators the recognition that while their primary focus must remain their 
domestic  constituencies,  they  are  now  also  joint  stewards  and  regulators  of  a 
transatlantic market. 

Recent  efforts  to  improve  co-operation  between  regulators  include  the  EU-US 
Guidelines on Regulatory Cooperation and Transparency, drawn up in 2002. A more 
systematic  approach  was  developed  in  the  June  2004  Roadmap  for  EU-US 
Regulatory  Cooperation.  These  voluntary  instruments  cover  industrial  products. 
They represent a step forward, resulting in co-operation in several sectors, generally 
increasing  awareness  of  the  need  to  reinforce  EU-US  regulatory  co-operation,  and 
getting  positive attention  from stakeholders. However, these instruments still  suffer 
from  a  lack  of  visibility.  Their  effective  implementation  often  depends  on 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
prioritisation  of  available  resources  or  the  nature  of  regulatory  mandates  and 
authorisations.  The  degree  of  commitment  amongst  regulatory  authorities  to  co-
operate is therefore variable. 

Experience thus shows that the highest level of political support is called for, as well 
as an agenda-setting mechanism to identify those areas where more progress should 
be  made,  and  to  develop  appropriate  objectives  and  priorities  on  a  regular  basis. 
Experience  with  the  existing  regulatory  dialogues,  covering  a  variety  of  areas,  also 
shows  that  a  “one  size  fits  all”  model  cannot  be  applied,  and  that  flexibility  is 
required as some dialogues already function well. Building on the experience gained 
so far, the EU and the US should now take an ambitious qualitative step to reinforce 
regulatory  co-operation.  In  doing  so,  a  sector-by-sector  approach  should  be 
maintained  and  the  full  potential  of  a  tool  box  ranging  from  information  exchange 
and confidence-building to binding approaches requiring legislative changes, should 
be applied as appropriate.  

A reinforced approach should comprise: 

•  enhanced upstream co-operation, including the following key elements: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

(d) 

(e) 

(f) 

(g) 

timely exchange of the annual work programmes of the Commission 
and US regulators, 

a  “regulators’  hotline”  to  be  used  where  one  party  requests  to  be 
consulted  on  new  regulatory  initiatives  being  planned  by  the  other 
which have the potential to affect its important interests, 

identification of sectors where co-operation has the greatest chance of 
delivering increased economic benefits, 

consultation 
development stage of new standards or policy initiatives, 

international 

standard-setting  bodies  at 

in 

the 

encouragement  of  proportionate  assessments  of  the  economic,  social 
and  environmental  impacts  beyond  the  borders  of  the  respective 
parties, 

exchange  and  development  of  best  practice  in  terms  of  risk  analysis 
regarding  the  protection  of  consumers  and  the  environment,  taking 
into account the precautionary principle, 

additional  measures  to  promote  improved  understanding  of  each 
other’s  regulatory  practices  and  more  effective  and  consistent 
application  of  regulatory  approaches  and  tools.  This  would  include 
exchange  of  best  general  regulatory  practice,  addressing  for  example 
transparency provisions and public consultation; 

•  recognition  of  equivalence  where  regulations  and  standards,  while  different, 

provide equivalent levels of protection and quality; 

•  development of common standards, where appropriate. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
3.1.2. 

Investment facilitation 

Despite  the  importance  of  investment  flows  in  EU-US  economic  relations,  there 
remain  anomalous  ownership  restrictions  on  the  US  side  which  go  beyond  the 
minimum  necessary  for  security  reasons.  In  the  aviation  sector,  eliminating  foreign 
ownership restrictions on both sides of the Atlantic would give carriers better access 
to  international  capital,  which  in  turn  would  contribute  to  worldwide  operations, 
growth,  competitive  effectiveness  and  the  promotion  of  competition  and  consumer 
benefits.  More  generally,  EU  companies  are  also  concerned  that  screening  and 
notification  procedures  involving  the  Committee  on  Foreign  Investments  in  the  US 
(CFIUS) include disproportionate oversight and corporate governance requirements, 
as well as screening of sensitive personnel. The EU should seek abolition by the US 
of  remaining  ownership  restrictions,  to  be  replaced  by  simplified,  reasonable  and 
proportionate notification requirements, if necessary through binding provisions. 

An additional issue is to promote the progress of tort reform in the US – a matter of 
acute  interest  for  European  investors  for  whom  dubious  claims  for  damages 
constitute a major element of uncertainty in the US investment environment. 

3.1.3.  Competition policy and enforcement 

As  the  EU  and  US  economies  have  become  ever  more  intertwined,  mergers  and 
acquisitions  on  one  side  of  the  Atlantic  have  increasingly  had  competition  policy 
consequences  for  the  other  jurisdiction.  The  European  Commission  and  the  US 
competition authorities co-operate intensively under the 1991 and 1998 agreements, 
co-ordinating enforcement activities and exchanging non-confidential information. In 
particular as international cartels subject to joint investigation are concerned, the lack 
of a framework permitting exchange of confidential information can hinder effective 
co-operation. The EU and the US should explore ways to overcome the obstacles to 
such information exchanges. 

3.1.4.  Government procurement 

Opening  up  of  procurement  markets  between  the  US  and  the  EU  would  increase 
Europe’s competitiveness and create new opportunities for EU businesses (including 
for  Small  and  Medium  Size  Enterprises  -  SMEs).  Although  the  WTO  Government 
Procurement Agreement (GPA) substantially increases procurement opportunities for 
the  two  sides,  the  US  has  always  been  resistant  to  improving  the  situation.  “Buy 
America”, Small Business Act and State level preferences all figure high on the list 
of market access impediments cited by EU companies. 

To  remedy  the  situation,  relations  with  the  US  in  the  field  of  government 
procurement  should  be  dealt  with  on  a  reciprocal  and  “GPA-plus”  basis.  Flanking 
measures to improve mutual access to tendering opportunities, including enhancing 
the use of electronic procurement on both sides, should also be elaborated building 
on previous work. 

In addition, the EU and the US should reinforce their co-ordination and co-operation 
with  a  view  to  fostering  progress  in  plurilateral  and  multilateral  negotiations  on 
government procurement: review of the GPA (text and coverage), expansion of GPA 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
membership and negotiation of a multilateral agreement on government procurement 
in services under the GATS. 

3.1.5.  Aviation 

Negotiations  on  a  comprehensive  EU-US  air  services  agreement  provide  us  with  a 
great  opportunity  to  give  concrete  effect  to  closer  transatlantic  relations.  Aviation 
services  are  currently  confined  within  a  regulatory  framework  which  reflects  the 
political  and  technological  landscape  of  the  1940s.  New  business  opportunities 
would be opened up for US and EU airlines and enormous economic benefits could 
be unlocked by an agreement (consumer benefits of at least $5 billion a year, over 17 
million  extra  passengers  a  year,  new  employment  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic).  A 
comprehensive EU-US agreement would create a sound economic and legal basis for 
transatlantic air services. The time is ripe to continue negotiations, focussing on the 
significant gains for the broader transatlantic economy. Negotiations should proceed 
on the basis of the draft agreement which was tabled in June 2004. Progress should 
be made on a number of key elements within the agreement: regulatory co-operation 
(notably on security, state aids and competition matters) and traffic rights. The key 
issue of ownership and control rules for US airlines is under consideration by the US 
administration. 

3.1.6.  Maritime transport services and maritime affairs 

Maritime  transport  is  an  important  facilitator  of  world  and  transatlantic  trade. 
Seaborne  trade  carries  90%  of  all  international  trade  (by  volume),  and  several 
segments – like container trade – are showing sustained double-digit annual growth 
rates. The EU and the US have maritime industries which are of significant economic 
importance  in  their  own  right  and  vital  for  international  trade.  Restrictive  policies 
risk holding back economic progress and expansion of global trade. There is a need 
to address the regulatory framework for the maritime sector, in particular in the field 
of security measures, where co-operation should be developed. 

The  European  Commission  has  started  the  process  of  designing  an  all-embracing 
Maritime Policy, while the US administration adopted in December 2004 an Ocean 
Action  plan  in  response  to  the  report  of  the  US  Commission  on  Ocean  Policy  of 
September 2004. Cooperation in this field could be further strengthened and should 
include issues such as international ocean governance and the Law of the Sea, data 
exchange,  research,  maritime  security  and  environmental  protection,  and  the 
economic use of the ocean and its resources in a sustainable manner. 

3.1.7.  Financial markets 

Access  to  capital  is  the  wellspring  of  investment  and  innovation.  Already,  the  EU 
and  US  financial  markets  are  highly  integrated,  reflecting  significant  cross-
investment  and  capital  flows.  Yet  there  is  a  need  for  further  integration.  True 
integration  of  the  EU  and  US  financial  markets  has  the  potential  to  lower  trading 
costs  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  by  60%,  with  a  consequent  50%  increase  in 
trading  volumes  and  a  9%  decline  in  the  cost  of  equity  capital.  Conversely, 
divergence between regulations, or regulatory “spillover” from one jurisdiction to the 
other  have  considerable  economic  knock-on  effects.  In  some  areas,  such  as  the  US 
insurance sector, traditional market barriers still exist. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
The  EU  and  the  US  are  convinced  of  the  need  to  increase  convergence  and 
acceptance  of  functional  equivalence  in  key  areas  such  as  accounting  and  audit 
standards,  capital  adequacy  requirements  for  banks,  and  framework  conditions  for 
banking and other financial markets, notably financial conglomerates. The Financial 
Markets Regulatory Dialogue (FMRD) between various players on both sides of the 
Atlantic has dealt successfully with several key issues, such as some implementation 
aspects  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act,  the  possibility  for  EU  companies  to  deregister 
from US exchanges, and the need for convergence of accounting standards. Political 
agreement  on  the  latter  has  now  been  reached.  In  the  near  future,  recognition  of 
International Accounting Standards (IAS) for European issuers in the US should be 
obtained; discussions should start on mutual recognition of insurance of commercial 
risks and – in the reinsurance sector – solutions to remove collateral requirements for 
EU reinsurers doing business in the US should be found. On broader issues such as 
approaches  to  corporate  governance,  the  European  Commission  and  its  US 
counterparts should continue to encourage broad-based dialogue in the context of the 
Transatlantic Corporate Governance Dialogue (TCGD). 

3.1.8.  Free movement of people 

Nationals of certain EU Member States wanting to make visits to the US are not even 
eligible for visa waiver arrangements. The EU will aim to ensure that the present US 
short term visa waiver arrangements are extended to all EU Member States. 

On the business side, investment and trade by affiliates are becoming the drivers of 
the transatlantic economy. Freedom of movement of personnel between the EU and 
the  US  for  extended  stays  is  essential.  The  possibility  of  a  travel  initiative  for  a 
special  status  of  “trusted  persons”  should  be  examined  to  facilitate  movement  of 
international travellers while bearing in mind security procedures. 

3.1.9.  Mutual recognition of professional qualifications 

The lack of recognition of equivalence of professional qualifications forms a barrier 
to the movement of professionals, and a brake on competition in the services sector. 
However,  attempts  to  negotiate  mutual  recognition  agreements  (MRAs)  in  this 
domain  have  failed  to  make  progress  owing  to  the  disproportionate  effort  required, 
notably  to  overcome  issues  of  state  jurisdiction  in  the  US.  In  this  context, 
negotiations should primarily be focussed on sectors where economic interest or need 
has been substantiated by suppliers and/or users of professional services. 

In the field of architectural services, professional organisations on both sides of the 
Atlantic  have  shown  a  specific  interest  in  the  negotiation  of  a  Mutual  Recognition 
Agreement (MRA), and are far advanced in their discussions towards this end. The 
Council has agreed a mandate for the negotiation of MRAs in this field, which would 
allow the Commission to negotiate with the US such demand-driven MRAs. In this 
regard, the US should be encouraged to give political backing to the results of inter-
professional discussions, with a view to paving the way for a binding MRA between 
authorities competent for the negotiation of international agreements. 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
3.2. 

The knowledge and innovation dynamic 

3.2.1.  New technologies 

3.2.1.1.  Information and communication technologies (ICT): regulation for innovation 

Regulators  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  are  grappling  with  the  challenge  of  a  fast 
evolving  digital  economy  and  the  convergence  of  telecommunications,  computing 
and  broadcasting  technologies.  Stakeholders  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  are 
concerned  about 
that  may  result  from  divergent  regulatory 
environments. The European Commission and the US already discuss key issues in 
the  framework  of  the  EU-US  Information  Society  dialogue,  but  more  intensive 
upstream  co-ordination  would  help  further  to  prevent  unjustified  divergences  and 
foster the development of innovative technologies on both sides of the Atlantic. 

the  obstacles 

There  is  plenty  of  scope  to  work  on  common  opportunities  and  threats  in  the 
development  of  ICT.  The  EU  and  the  US  should  encourage  the  widespread 
deployment  of  key  technologies  such  as  broadband,  radio  frequency  identification 
devices  and  other  innovative  technologies  which  could  contribute  to  promoting 
transatlantic  innovation  and  growth.  At  the  same  time,  they  should  seek  to  prevent 
abuses which reduce the potential of these technologies for all users, for example by 
co-operating to cut down spam and contribute to the fight against additional threats 
such as “spyware” and other forms of “malware”. 

3.2.1.2.  Space 

Partly  because  of  export  controls,  the  US  retains  leadership  in  niche  areas  such  as 
certain  satellite  components.  But  as  the  agreement  on  Galileo  has  demonstrated, 
discussions can now take place on a peer-to-peer basis, looking at identifying mutual 
interests and creating a favourable environment for co-operation in space science and 
commercial applications in this potential high-tech growth area. 

The EU and the US should create a structured dialogue covering two crucial aspects. 
Firstly,  to  promote  co-operation  in  key  areas  such  as  earth  observation,  satellite 
navigation (Galileo, GPS), electronic communication, space science and exploration, 
and support to developing countries for space-related activities. Secondly, in parallel, 
to  address  remaining  regulatory  barriers  to  the  creation  of  a  properly  functioning 
transatlantic  market  for  the  space  industry.  Key  issues  here  would  be  to  remove 
unnecessary controls under the US International Trade in Arms Regulations (ITAR), 
and to liberalise the international launcher market. 

3.2.2. 

Intellectual property 

intellectual  property  rights 

Protecting 
innovation,  employment, 
competition is a fundamental economic objective shared by both the EU and the US. 
There is a need both to fight rampant counterfeiting and piracy and to mitigate costly 
differences in the way in which intellectual property is protected on either side of the 
Atlantic. 

to  promote 

Building on the redoubled commitment shown by the EU with its 2004 Enforcement 
Directive,  the  EU  and  the  US  should  enhance  co-operation  on  intellectual  property 

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
enforcement issues, starting by checking that their own house is in order, and moving 
on to address IP issues in selected third countries, especially through joint efforts to 
combat  piracy  and  counterfeiting.  More  broadly,  substantive  legal  issues  should 
continue to be addressed, such as patents (examining creative ways to reduce the gap 
between “first to invent” and “first to file”) and protection of broadcasters linked to 
new technologies. An intensified dialogue needs to be backed up by willingness on 
the US side to implement IPR-related WTO rulings, and support for full participation 
of  the  European  Community  in  WIPO  Committees  where  the  Community  has 
competence. There is also a need to ensure that IP rights in digital media develop in a 
way that preserves the traditional commitment to a balance between the interests of 
content owners and consumers. 

3.2.3.  Research and Development 

Recognition  of  the  important  role  to  be  played  by  research  and  development 
activities  in  boosting  competitiveness  and  economic  growth  lies  at  the  heart  of  the 
renewal  of  the  Lisbon  Agenda.  Equally,  the  EU  has  recognised  for  some  time  the 
contribution that can be made to the realisation of a knowledge-driven EU economy 
by opening up activities under the successive Framework Programmes to researchers 
and  research  institutions  from  third  countries.  Several  activities  have  been 
undertaken under the EU-US Science and Technology Agreement since 19984 with 
ongoing  collaborative  projects  with  participation  of  US  companies  and  research 
institutes  in  such  areas  as  industrial  materials,  fuel  cells,  intelligent  manufacturing 
systems,  biotechnology5  and  aspects  of  climate  change.  Collaboration  should  be 
strengthened  in  these  and  other  areas  under  the  forthcoming  7th  Framework 
Programme for research and development. 

The  EU  and  the  US  should  continue  to  work  together  to  identify  priority  areas  of 
research collaboration with in order to: 

–  generate  transatlantic  economic  growth,  develop  new  transatlantic  markets  (e.g. 
hydrogen  fuel  cell  technologies  and  nanotechnology),  and  find  solutions  to 
common regulatory challenges; 

–  promote a secure economic environment, notably by collaborating with the US on 
areas  relevant  to  civil  security.  This  includes  both  the  domains  identified  in  the 
Commission’s  Preparatory  Action  (COM(2004)  72  final)  on  security  research 
(such as protecting against chemical and biological terrorist threats and enhancing 
crisis  management),  as  well  as,  in  the  area  of  ICT,  the  technological  areas  of 
security  and  dependability  of  complex  networked  systems  and  information 
infrastructures of the Information Society Technologies (IST) programme. 

4 
5 

The existence of Euratom agreements of 1996 (fission) and 2001 (fusion) should also be recalled here. 
Based  on  the  work  of  the  European  Commission-US  Task  Force  on  Biotechnology  Research, 
established in 1990 as a bilateral consultative mechanism. 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
                                                 
3.2.4.  Energy 

Given the context of recent high and volatile oil prices and the need to address the 
issue  of  climate  change,  the  EU  and  the  US  should  work  more  closely  together  to 
strengthen  policy  dialogues  on  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  issues,  as 
well as by developing clean technologies (e.g. carbon capture and storage and other 
low carbon technologies). 

3.2.5.  Education and vocational training 

The  EU  and  the  US  should  continue  to  work  together  to  renew  and  reinforce  the 
current agreement on Higher Education and Vocational Training which expires at the 
end  of  2005,  aiming  to  enhance  people-to-people  exchanges  and  develop  policy-
oriented  measures  on  issues  such  as  quality  and  compatibility  of  education  and 
training  systems,  access  to  lifelong  learning  for  all,  and  opening  up  education  and 
training systems to the world. The potential to promote research as well as exchanges 
of  university  teachers,  researchers  and  students  in  areas  which  contribute  to  the 
deepening of EU-US economic relations should be examined. 

3.3. 

Smarter, safer borders for swifter trade and investment 

The  aftermath  of  11  September  2001  saw  new  security  measures  imposed  by 
governments  around  the  world.  Stakeholders  on  both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  stressed 
the tangible impact these measures have had on international trade. The challenge is 
to strike a balance between heightened security requirements and the continuation of 
open  and  secure  trade  and  passenger  transport.  Smoother  trade  and  more  effective 
security  are  not  contradictory.  Trade  facilitation  measures  aimed  at  guaranteeing  a 
level playing field and speeding up processing for compliant economic operators can 
also ensure appropriate levels of control. 

Building on the good work already done in the context of the EU-US agreement on 
enhanced customs co-operation in the area of transport security, the EU and the US 
should  enhance  dialogue,  based  on  the  principles  of  reciprocity  and  mutual 
recognition. 

Particular attention should be given to: 

–  supporting  the  overall  objectives  laid  down  by  the  European  Community-US 
agreement on enhanced customs co-operation in the area of transport security: (i) 
full  reciprocity  and  mutual  recognition  of  security  standards,  risk  assessment, 
control  measures  and  results,  and  industry  partnership  programmes,  and  (ii)  co-
operating on measures like the single window concept, single point of access and 
e-customs that will be introduced in Community customs legislation; 

–  exchanging best practice and co-operating on the implementation in the EU of the 
concept  of  “authorised  economic  operator”  (AEO).  The  aim  should  be  to  go 
beyond  mere  compatibility  of  the  AEO  concept  with  the  US  Customs-Trade 
Partnership  Against  Terrorism  (C-TPAT)  programme  by  inviting  the  US  to 
upgrade  its  concept  so  that  it  is  fully  equivalent  in  scope  to  that  of  the  EU  and 
achieving mutual recognition and reciprocity of both programmes; 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
–  agreeing with the US side to avoid duplications of controls which arise from the 
application  of  parallel  sets  of  –  sometimes  contradictory  –  existing  standards. 
Emphasis  should  instead  be  put  on  mutual  recognition  and  reciprocity.  With 
regard  to  customs  controls,  the  overall  objectives  of  mutual  recognition  and 
reciprocity of control standards and control measures should be actively pursued; 

–  focusing  discussions  with  the  US  on  implementing  the  “Public  Health,  Security 
and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act” to ensure the minimum impact 
on trade; 

–  giving fresh impetus to the development of global security standards, notably by 
promoting  the  security  standards  agreed  between  the  European  Community  and 
the US through the World Customs Organisation (WCO), the International Civil 
Aviation  Organisation  (ICAO)  and  the  International  Maritime  Organisation 
(IMO).  A  current  example  is  the  development  in  the  WCO  forum  of  a  draft 
framework of standards for security and facilitation of global trade, which will be 
adopted  by  the  Customs  Co-operation  Council  at  the  end  of  June  2005  and  will 
subsequently be implemented by WCO members; 

–  another area where the EU and the US share common concerns relates to the fight 
against  corporate  and  financial  fraud,  money  laundering,  financing  of  terrorism, 
tax  fraud  and  tax  avoidance,  corruption  and  other  financial  and  corporate 
malpractices.  The  EU  and  the  US  should  therefore  encourage  their  partners  to 
adopt  the  highest  standards  of  transparency,  exchange  of  information  and 
cooperation among competent authorities. 

Once the Community is able to become a full member of the WCO according to the 
application  it  first  made  in  2000,  it  will  be  in  a  better  position  to  contribute  to 
achieving  worldwide  progress  on  security  issues.  The  support  of  the  US  for  this 
application would be of great importance in this regard. 

4. 

DELIVERING THE ECONOMIC GOALS 

Stakeholders consulted by the EU emphasised that past EU economic initiatives with 
the  US  had  often  failed  to  gather  the  political  attention  necessary  for  them  to  be 
sustained long enough to deliver worthwhile results.  

In the view of the Commission, leaders at the 2005 Summit should direct negotiators 
to  explore  all  means  to  achieve  a  qualitative  step  forward  in  EU-US  economic 
relations. There should be a redoubling of high level political commitment, including 
confirmation by the EU-US Summit of the overall goal of working towards a barrier-
free transatlantic market. 

4.1. 

The policy tool box 

The  means  with  which  the  economic  initiatives  identified  above  can  be  taken 
forward should include: 

–  setting  up  a  high  level  Regulatory  Co-operation  Forum,  including  the  top  level 
sectoral  regulators  from  both  sides,  meeting  before  EU-US  Summits,  and 
submitting  to  Summit  Leaders  an  annual  Roadmap  with  appropriate  objectives 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
and  priorities  for  the  future.  In  its  work,  the  Forum  should  take  account  of  and 
further  develop  the  seven  key  elements  of  enhanced  upstream  regulatory  co-
operation  set  out  in  section  3.1.1,  discuss  general  regulatory  policies,  steer  and 
provide  additional  momentum  to  existing  and  future  regulatory  dialogues,  and 
review  progress  in  implementing  the  Roadmap.  The  Forum  should  seek  input 
from stakeholders; 

–  fostering  a  dialogue  between  legislators  on  both  sides  on  the  priorities  for 
regulatory  co-operation,  as  an  important  external  dimension  of  their  domestic 
regulatory reform processes, in order to overcome internal obstacles to regulatory 
co-operation, including authorisations and resource problems; 

–  co-operation, where appropriate, on addressing challenges in third countries, or on 

advancing bilateral proposals in international fora; 

–  binding sectoral agreements, for example: 

(a) 

(b) 

to  advance  a  number  of  economic  issues  raised  in  section  3.1., 
including  investment  facilitation,  government  procurement,  aviation, 
maritime  transport  services,  and  mutual  recognition  of  professional 
qualifications, or 

where  voluntary  regulatory  co-operation  is  not  a  sufficient  tool  in  a 
specific sector, notably where progress is not otherwise achievable or 
where existing Memoranda of Understanding between regulators have 
proved  insufficient  to  ensure  progress.  Such  agreements  should  be 
supported  by  the  establishment  of  appropriate  mandates  and  the 
allocation  of  the  appropriate  resources,  with  adequate  safeguards  to 
ensure  that  they  are  domestically  and  internationally  enforceable. 
These sectoral agreements, entered into on the initiative of regulators, 
would not prejudice regulatory autonomy; 

–  taking  into  account  developments  with  regard  to  regulatory  co-operation, 
consideration  should  be  given  to  a  binding  horizontal  approach  in  areas  of 
Community competence, covering the seven key elements of enhanced upstream 
co-operation set out in section 3.1.1. This would make binding only the obligation 
to  co-operate  and  consult  in  these  areas.  It  would  not  prejudice  regulatory 
autonomy by specifying binding outcomes or common methodologies. 

The  option  of  creating  a  business-consumer-government  Joint  Task  Force,  drawing 
on  the  combined  resources  of  the  Transatlantic  Business  and  Consumer  Dialogues, 
should also be examined. 

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
5. 

THE BROADER ARCHITECTURE OF EU-US RELATIONS 

Looking at the framework for EU-US economic relations inevitably raises the related 
question of political structures6. 

5.1. 

The New Transatlantic Agenda (NTA) – an independent assessment 

The NTA was established in 1995. With its tenth anniversary in mind, the European 
Commission  contracted  out  an  independent  report7  to  evaluate  how  far  its  stated 
goals have been met and propose options for the future. 

The report shows that the record of EU-US cooperation in the decade since 1995 has 
generally  been  good.  Many  of  the  NTA’s  most  important  goals,  for  example  those 
relating  to  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  and  the  Balkans,  have  been  substantially 
achieved. The NTA has made exchanges between the EU and the US more intensive, 
systematic  and  productive.  Regular  dialogue  has  been  established  between 
interlocutors  who  previously  interacted  little.  The  NTA  has,  often  in  line  with 
expanded  EU  competences,  generally  proven  flexible  enough  to  incorporate  new 
issues  such  as  homeland  security  and  counter-terrorism.  There  has  also  been 
increasing cooperation on foreign policy issues.  

The report views the record of EU-US economic policy relations, however, as mixed, 
citing  poor  implementation  of  economic  agreements  and  the  need  to  implicate  key 
legislative and regulatory actors on both sides. It concludes that the EU-US economic 
policy agenda needs to be relaunched. 

The  report  also  concludes  that  the  EU-US  dialogue  has  suffered  from  a  lack  of 
political engagement at the highest political and official levels, and that the EU itself 
is poorly understood in Washington. In addition, the report discovered a widespread 
perception  of  defects  in  the  NTA.  Firstly,  many  lamented  that  a  lack  of  political 
commitment limited its capacity to contain major problems. Secondly, they regretted 
its  low  public  profile  and  its  image  as  a  technocratic  exercise.  Thirdly,  they 
complained of too much process, out of proportion to actual output, its tendency to 
become  overloaded  with  issues,  and  failure  to  prioritise  key  strategic  questions. 
Finally, they felt that a lack of transparency led to a low sense of involvement on the 
part  of  the  EU’s  Member  States,  and  that  there  was  a  failure  to  involve  legislators 
and allow them input into its exchanges. 

The report recognises that some stakeholders have made the argument that an over-
arching EU-US Partnership Agreement is necessary in order to ensure progress. This 
would have the advantage of putting relations with the US on a firm contractual basis 
for the first time. In political circles on either side of the Atlantic, however, the report 
revealed little support for such an agreement. It also warned of the danger of raising 
expectations beyond what is politically achievable. 

6 
7 

These currently consist of the 1990 Transatlantic Declaration and the 1995 New Transatlantic Agenda. 
“Review  of  the  Framework  for  Relations  between  the  European  Union  and  the  United  States  –  An 
independent study”, report by an academic team led by Professor John Peterson, submitted on 18 April 
2005. 

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
                                                 
Finally,  the  report  concludes  that  the  NTA  should  be  made  into  a  more  inclusive, 
overarching framework and greater political commitment mobilised. 

5.2. 

Giving EU-US relations the political profile to match our ambitions 

The  Commission  believes  there  is  a  need  to  raise  the  political  profile  of  EU-US 
relations  and  make  them  more  strategic  and  effective  in  order  to  realise  our  shared 
vision of a more democratic, peaceful and prosperous international order. The time is 
right. The recent visits to Brussels by the US President and Secretary of State showed 
that the US also sees an interest in closer cooperation. 

One  outcome  might  be  a  renewed  transatlantic  declaration  emphasising  common 
values and developing priorities for joint action, based on the recognition that the EU 
and  the  US  have  a  high  degree  of  economic  interdependence  and  wish  to  tackle 
common global  and regional  challenges8.  This may raise the political  profile  of  the 
EU-US dialogue in line with the emergence of the EU as an international actor, not 
least due to reform of its foreign policy institutions. 

In  addition,  fresh  attempts  need  to  be  made  to  involve  legislators  more  directly  in 
EU-US exchanges, in order to redress the lack of understanding on the EU side of the 
role played by the US Congress and on the US side of that played by the European 
Parliament.  Re-engineering  the  legislative  dialogue  should  become  part  of  a  wider 
effort to try and make the EU-US relationship a more bottom-up process. 

The  revamped  framework  for  EU-US  relations  will  have  to  reflect  the  relevant 
provisions of the Constitutional Treaty once it has been adopted. 

The Commission thus recommends that the following options be explored: 

–  giving  the  relationship  a  strong  political  injection  to  build  on  and  improve  the 

current framework; 

–  focusing  EU-US  Summits  on  strategic  priority  setting  and  assessing  progress  on 

meeting the objectives of previous years; 

–  negotiating a new Joint Action Plan to implement policy priorities and updating it 

at the annual EU-US Summit; 

–  setting  up  a  forum  for  exchanging  views  on  macroeconomic  issues  of  common 

interest; 

–  enhancing the Transatlantic Legislators Dialogue (to consist of representatives of 
the  European  Parliament  and  both  Houses  of  the  US  Congress),  as  a  first  step 

8 

A  similar  idea  was  proposed  by  President  John  F.  Kennedy  in  his  speech  in  Philadelphia  on  4  July 
1962: “… the United States will be ready for a Declaration of Interdependence, … we will be prepared 
to  discuss  with  a  united  Europe  the  ways  and  means  of  forming  a  concrete  Atlantic  partnership,  a 
mutually beneficial partnership between the new union now emerging in Europe and the old American 
Union founded here 175 years ago. All this will not be completed in a year, but let the world know it is 
our goal.” 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
                                                 
towards a fully-fledged “Transatlantic Assembly”9. This Dialogue would be based 
on  a  wider  understanding  of  its  remit  than  is  currently  the  case,  including  the 
regulatory questions discussed in section 4.1 above. Elements could include: 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

building  synergies  between  TLD  and  NTA  dialogues,  using  elected 
representatives  with  relevant  policy  specialisations  and  coordinating 
meetings, 

urging the European Parliament and US Congress to: (i) launch new, 
jointly-funded programmes for exchange between legislative staffers, 
and (ii) create a small, agile TLD secretariat, 

sponsoring an EU study group for members of the US Congress, to be 
hosted by the Commission’s Delegation in Washington, 

(d) 

holding legislators summits prior to EU-US Summits; 

–  promoting  dialogue  between  representatives  of  the  social  partners  from  the  EU 
and the US, including a tripartite conference in the field of industrial relations; 

–  refreshing the dialogue between EU and US civil societies, academics and other 

practitioners; 

–  expanding people-to-people exchanges. 

The Commission will also look at launching with Member States a campaign in the 
US to promote awareness of what the EU is and what it does. 

6. 

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

The initiatives proposed above are intended to form a first coherent package of inputs 
into  the  establishment  of  a  joint  forward-looking  strategy  for  the  enhancement  of 
efforts under the EU-US economic partnership to build a barrier-free market, and to 
strengthen  the  broader  framework  of  EU-US  relations.  At  the  same  time,  however, 
the EU and the US have to recognise, in the spirit which the EU has applied to the 
renewal of the Lisbon Agenda, that somewhat less than half of the actions proposed 
in the Transatlantic Economic Partnership of 1998 have actually been implemented. 
A  qualitative  leap  in  co-operation  and  regular,  vigilant  priority-setting  and 
monitoring for results at political and senior official level, including a permanent link 
to the annual Summit, must therefore be preconditions for any new initiatives. Both 
discipline and realism need to be applied in launching new ideas. 

The Commission recommends: 

9 

In this regard, the European Parliament resolution on transatlantic relations of 13 January 2005 stated 
that  the  Parliament  “Considers  that  the  Transatlantic  Legislators  Dialogue  should  be  fully  activated, 
that an early warning system should immediately be put in place between the two sides, and that the 
existing  interparliamentary  exchange  should  be  gradually  transformed  into  a  de  facto  ‘Transatlantic 
Assembly’.” 

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
                                                 
–  that it should on the basis of this Communication draw up with the United States, 
along the lines of the above proposals, a joint strategy for the enhancement of the 
EU-US  economic  partnership  in  the  form  of  a  Declaration  at  the  2005  EU-US 
Summit. This would: 

(a) 

(b) 

establish  as  precisely  as  possible  objectives  and  sectors  for  a 
qualitative step in the EU-US economic partnership towards a barrier-
free market, 

direct  competent  negotiators  on  both  sides  in  the  respective  agreed 
sectors, to draw up within six months timetabled implementation plans 
to  achieve  to  the  fullest  extent  possible  the  objectives  set  out  in  this 
Communication,  drawing  on  the  appropriate  mix  of  non-binding  and 
binding approaches; 

–  exploring in the run-up to the 2005 EU-US Summit the options set out in Section 
5  to  strengthen  the  overall  framework  of  EU-US  relations,  and,  if  deemed 
appropriate by both sides, developing a proposal to Leaders in time for the 2006 
EU-US Summit. 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
IMPACT ASSESSMENT FORM 

TITLE OF PROPOSAL 

Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council,  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
European Economic and Social Committee: “Strengthening the EU-US Economic Partnership 
for the 21st Century” 

DOCUMENT REFERENCE NUMBER 

1. 

WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS LIKELY TO RESULT FROM THE PROPOSAL? 

1.1. 

Economic impacts 

The  creation  of  positive  economic  impacts  lies  at  the  heart  of  the  Commission 
initiative to enhance the transatlantic economic partnership. 

The proposal is likely to spur economic growth within the EU. Reducing barriers on 
both  sides  of  the  Atlantic  will  lead  to  more  trade,  investment  and  procurement 
opportunities.  Removing  these  obstacles  will  contribute  to  a  more  efficient 
production of goods and services in Europe and will entail the benefits of larger scale 
economies.  Moreover,  it  is  possible  to  achieve  mutual  recognition  or  even 
harmonization of differing standards which represent obstacles to trade today, with a 
favourable cost effect for companies. 

Enhanced  cooperation  with  the  US  in  the  field  of  research  and  development  will 
make an important contribution to stimulating innovation. In sectors where potential 
for  new  transatlantic  –  or  even  global  –  markets  exists  (e.g.  hydrogen  fuel  cell 
technologies),  joint  research  will  promote  the  development  of  new  technology.  In 
addition, the work envisaged in the field of intellectual property rights (IPR) has the 
potential to bring better IPR protection, adding incentives to conduct research with a 
view to developing innovative products and procedures. 

1.2. 

Environmental impacts 

Representatives from environmental organisations were invited to participate in the 
stakeholder consultation process. However, as the envisaged policy options are still 
rather broad and would need to be transformed into more specific proposals, concrete 
concerns  regarding  potential  environmental  impacts  will  have  to  be  addressed  at  a 
later stage. At this juncture, however it can be said that impacts on the environment 
of  the  proposed  communication  are  likely  to  be  limited  and  globally  positive.  The 
reduction  of  trade  barriers  that  might  result  from  the  EU-US  partnership  and  its 
subsequent economic growth should promote efficiency gains for the use of natural 
resources.  Possible  scale  effect,  i.e.  increased  use  of  resources  linked  to  economic 
growth, should be less significant and will be mitigated by both Parties which have 
the capacity and the regulatory framework to manage such impacts. 

Moreover,  the  partnership  will  promote  a  better  coordination  of  US  and  EU  trade 
related  policies  in  areas  that  are  fundamental  to  protecting  the  environment  and 
consumer  health,  for  example  sanitary  and  phytosanitary  policy,  trade  and 
environment. 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
In  the  event  that  the  proposed  policy  options  would  subsequently  lead  to  binding 
commitments or legislative proposals,  a thorough  environmental impact assessment 
would be undertaken in accordance with the Communication on Impact Assessment 
COM/2002/0276 final. 

1.3. 

Social impacts 

To  the  extent  that  the  reduction  of  barriers  to  trade  and  investment  promotes 
economic growth, the proposal is likely to have a positive impact on employment. As 
far as wages are concerned, it should be mentioned that fears that increased market 
openness  would  place  downward  pressure  on  wages  are  not  substantiated  in  the 
transatlantic context, given comparable wage levels. 

It  should  be  noted  that  one  of  the  explicit  aims  of  the  proposal  is  to  improve 
transatlantic cooperation on health and safety standards. Increased transparency and 
improved consumer protection will be to the benefit of European consumers. At the 
same time, both sides would retain full regulatory autonomy. 

There  is  nothing  in  the  proposals  set  out  in  the  Communication  which  could 
undermine the social model. 

1.4. 

Impacts on third countries and international relations 

The impact on third countries will essentially unfold in three areas: (i) joint EU-US 
efforts  in  promoting  IPR  protection,  (ii)  promotion  of  global  telecommunication 
standards and introduction of independent telecoms regulators in third countries, (iii) 
joint EU-US efforts on standard setting in global fora. 

The Commission proposal does not affect the EU’s WTO obligations. The initiatives 
proposed  are  compatible  with  and  complementary  to  WTO  rules.  The  WTO  TBT 
code  allows  the  EU  to  conclude  mutual  recognition  agreements  and  to  accept 
technical regulations of other countries as equivalent. 

2. 

HOW TO MONITOR AND EVALUATE THE RESULTS AND IMPACTS OF 
THE PROPOSAL AFTER IMPLEMENTATION? 

The  Commission  recommends  the  formulation  of  a  joint  strategy  for  the 
enhancement  of  the  EU-US  economic  partnership  which  would  direct  competent 
negotiators  on  both  sides  in  the  respective  agreed  sectors,  to  draw  up  as  soon  as 
possible implementation plans to achieve to the fullest extent possible the objectives 
set out in this Communication. It also directs negotiators to start work on a binding 
Economic Partnership Agreement. Monitoring of implementation would be achieved 
through the existing and any proposed new dialogue structures. 

3. 

STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATION 

3.1. 

Which  interested  parties  were  consulted  and  what  were  the  results  of  the 
consultation? 

Following the agenda set out in the 2004 summit declaration, stakeholders in the EU 
(and the US) were invited to comment on how to improve the economic partnership 
with the US. Public consultation in the form of a questionnaire was launched on 30 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
September  2004.  The  business  community,  environmental  and  consumer 
organizations, trade union and other interested groups and individuals were invited to 
provide  their  views  on  the  obstacles  they  face  when  trading  or  investing  in  each 
other’s  markets  as  well  as  on  future  trade  and  economic  relations  between  the 
European Union and the United States. 

The questionnaire was provided on the “Your Voice in Europe” Internet site and was 
open  until  31  December  2004.  It  received  about  100  serious  and  constructive 
contributions. Inputs came from a broad range of interested parties. Contributions of 
stakeholders who gave their consent were published on the Internet. 

Interested  parties  also  had  the  opportunity  to  present  their  views  at  stakeholders’ 
conferences in Brussels on 22 October 2004 and 7 March 2005. 

3.2. 

Compliance with minimum standards for consultation 

The  Commission  ensured  that  relevant  parties  had  an  opportunity  to  express  their 
opinions on the question of how to foster the transatlantic economic partnership. By 
inviting  all  interested  parties  to  participate  in  two  conferences  and  to  complete  a 
comprehensive  questionnaire,  the  Commission  guaranteed  that  all  interests  were 
sufficiently  taken  into  account  in  the  consultation  process.  It  also  ensured  that 
generous  deadlines  provided  stakeholders  with  adequate  time  to  formulate  their 
answers.  Finally,  by  making  the  relevant  information  public,  the  publication  and 
feedback requirements of the Commission were met. 

EN 

22 

   EN