In the second half of 2015 the media coverage of TTIP has remained similar. As shown in table 4.5 TTIP is mentioned 505 times during this time, something that indicates a period of higher issue salience. That high issue salience causes more contestation over a subject is proven by
rise of protest movements. The sECI transferred into a European initiative and handed over more than 3.2 million signatures against TTIP (STOP TTIP, n.d.).
Table 4.5 - TTIP mentioned in European media Country 01-07-2015 until 31- 12-2015 01-01-2016 until 30- 06-2016 01-07-2016 until 31- 12-2016 France 44 109 168 Germany 258 436 808 Italy 76 168 136 Spain 76 111 152 United Kingdom 51 133 171 Total 505 957 1435
More contestation over the subject is observed, as shown by the 2015 resolution of the European Parliament. The resolution is much more critical than the one of 2013, containing a lot of concerns regarding the negotiations and proposals for TTIP. The European Parliament (2015b) doubts the outcome of earlier research regarding the potential benefits and stresses the importance of other studies, showing conflicting results. The take up of knowledge that is not provided by the European Commission seems to be increased compared to the resolution of 2013. The 2015 resolution not only mentioned other research, but also reports of the parliamentary committees as source of knowledge. This increased take up of knowledge does not necessarily indicates one of the different functions of knowledge.
However, one could conclude that the function of knowledge here is rather instrumental or substantiating, than it is legitimizing. Based on the indicators, we could argue that the parliamentary committees are structured for problems-solving purposes. They consist of different members of the EP from different ideological parties, which could lead to consensus and therefore instrumental knowledge. Nevertheless, within the committees there will be voted on the discussed subject, and therefore it is likely that it involves predetermined ideological preferences. Concluding that the European Commission uses knowledge for substantiating purposes. The information gathered form the available documents, however, is too scare to draw strong conclusions.
During the time period it is difficult to trace any evidence of knowledge utilization by the European Commission. Not much expert knowledge on TTIP is published by the Commission. However, something about knowledge utilization can be said based on the structure and meeting minutes of the expert group. By looking at the structure of the expert group, there can be conclude that nothing has changed. The expert group still has a legitimizing function rather than an instrumental or substantiating function. Concerns within the group strengthen this thought. Several members within the group questioned the use of their and other’s input. ‘In the meeting minutes “one member expressed concerns that the Commission does not seem to have considered a wider range of options following on from the wide range of response to the 2014 consultation” (European Commission, 2015, p. 4).’ This and the question of a member of the group, whether TTIP is the best solution for regulatory cooperation or not (European Commission, 2015), questions the instrumental function of knowledge utilization in the European Commission. There seems to be no interest in or take up of findings of the group or other sources. There could be concluded that the function of the public consultations and the existence of the groups is rather legitimizing.
The use of the substantiating function of knowledge could be found in the response of commission:
Mandating regulatory cooperation via a trade agreement is more likely to be successful in the long term than separate agreements. The economic and political value of doing so in TTIP would benefit the EU both in terms of direct economic benefits and the chance to demonstrate global leadership in this area. (European Commission, 2015, p. 6)
Based on the indicators there could be concluded that the European Commission uses knowledge in the second half of 2015 rather substantiating or legitimizing than instrumental, while the EP uses knowledge rather for substantiating purposes.
In the first half of 2016 the salience regarding TTIP has increased, TTIP is almost mentioned twice as much in comparison to the second half of 2015 (see table 4.5). For this period, little knowledge utilization has been publicized and thus observed. However, the report on US-EU Regulatory Cooperation: Lessons and Opportunities, conducted by The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center is one of the reports during this periods that is published on the website of the European Commission. The study is funded by the European Commission, but no additional information on how this happened can be found. However, the
content of the study highlights the possibilities EU-US regulatory cooperation, and how this cooperation could have mutual benefits.
By looking at the indicators for the different functions of knowledge utilization, this information seems rather useless. Nevertheless, one could argue, that based on the interest in publicizing knowledge, expert knowledge is here used for substantiating purposes. The study of The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center (2016) shows the potential of intensive regulatory cooperation, something that is in line with the political agenda of the European Commission. The first two indicators are useless in determining the function of knowledge in this particular case, since information on the structure and the involvement of the European Commission is limited. Based on the third indicator, there could be concluded that the Commission is interested in publicizing the report to sustain their preferences.
Other evidence of knowledge utilization in the European Commission can be observed from the Ecorys reports on TTIP. In May 2016, Ecorys published their draft interim technical report on Trade SIA on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the USA. The mandate is, as already mentioned, to provide “Trade Sustainability Assessment in support of negotiations of a comprehensive trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the United States of America” (DT Trade, 2013, p. 10). As expected the content of the report is technical, mapping the risk and benefits of TTIP (Ecorys, 2016a). This has already mentioned in the previous section of the analysis the instrumental function of knowledge. However, the intensive interest in terms of references catch doubts on the prevalence of the instrumental form of knowledge and indicates signs of the substantiating function.
In November 2016 Ecorys, published the draft final report on Trade SIA on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the EU and the USA. The goal of the report:
This Sustainability Impact Assessment (SIA) is intended to provide the European Commission with an in-depth analysis of the potential economic, social, human rights, and environmental consequences of a Transatlantic Trade & Investment Partnership (TTIP) in order to inform its negotiating approach and recommend certain measures. It does so through robust quantitative and qualitative analysis, informed by a continuous and wide-ranging consultation process with all relevant stakeholders. (Ecorys, 2016b, p. 13)
The report focuses on informing the negotiators what could be the best approach and on recommending best measure for policies. The research is thus especially relevant in terms of transferring research into policies. By looking at the indicators of the different functions of knowledge, there had already been concluded that the structure indicates an instrumental function of knowledge, while the involvement of policy makers also shows some substantiating purposes. The third indicator contributes to the idea that knowledge is used for problem-solving purposes, since no clear interest in publicizing the findings can be observed.
There could be concluded that in the period after July 2015 issues salience regarding the TTIP-negotiations is high. Based on the few documents available in this period, all different functions of knowledge can be observed. The European Commission uses all three different functions of knowledge. Where the legitimizing function is easy to observe, this is different for the instrumental and substantiating function, since utilization of knowledge is difficult to trace during this period. Based on what is going on in the expert group, that expressed concerns regarding the take up of knowledge, the legitimizing and substantiating function could be considered predominant. There could be concluded that the substantiating function of knowledge prevails.