In the second half of 2013 the European media does not pay much attention to TTIP, as shown in table 4.2. TTIP is only mentioned 34 times and therefore there could be argued that the TTIP- negotiations are still of low issue salience. This differs from the first half of 2014, TTIP is mentioned 138 times during this period and a slightly increasing issue salience is measured.
Table 4.2 - TTIP mentioned in European media
Country 01-07-2013 until 31-12- 2013 01-01-2014 until 30-06- 2014 France 5 48 Germany 15 72 Italy 11 13 Spain 3 5 United Kingdom 0 0 Total 34 138
There is little to say about knowledge utilization by the European Commission and EP in the period of 01-07-2013 until 31-12-2013. No new use of expert knowledge can be traced in the available documents. This in contrast to the beginning of 2014 in which a TTIP advisory
group was setup to provide EU TTIP negotiators with technical and practical advice on areas under negotiation (European Commission, 2014a).
The group is chaired by the EU TTIP chief negotiator and consist of different experts representing different fields of interest. The experts involved are not academic experts, but rather interest group representatives. As can be observed from the group details, presented by the European Commission, no individual expert is appointed in his or her personal capacity (European Commission, n.d.-b). However, according to the group details, each individual is an expert in their field of interest, as well as in EU trade policy. Meetings of the expert group take place on initiative of the EU TTIP chief negotiator, generally in between the negotiation rounds or at the request of at least five members. This resulted in seventeen meetings of the expert group until July 2015. Based on the composition of the group, there could be concluded that the structure of the expert group indicates the legitimizing or substantiating function of knowledge rather than that it contributes to the problem-solving ability of the European Commission. The group is composed of figures that are considered authoritative in their field of interest, this indicates the legitimizing function of the group. The substantiating function and instrumental function cannot be excluded based on the structure of group. The fact that the group is chaired by the chief negotiator could indicate both functions. It indicates the instrumental function, since the chief negotiator is expected to know precisely where the knowledge gaps are and what knowledge is useful during the negotiations. At the same time it indicates the substantiating function, because the chief negotiator is a figure that is trusted to act in line with the Commission its preferences.
However, one could argue, by looking at the mandate of the group, that the European Commission uses the legitimizing function of knowledge. The goal of the group is to exchange thoughts on different aspect of TTIP and the problems that might arise, examining specific questions related to the negotiations. “The aim is not necessarily to reach consensus, but to shed light on issues of importance in the negotiations through frank and focused discussion of different perspectives” (European Commission, 2014a, p. 2). The scope and the subject areas that had to be carried out were very broad, and during the first two meetings it was to some members unclear (European Commission, 2014b&c). The lack of design becomes clear during one of the meetings of the group. ‘As is noted during the meeting of 12 June, “this Advisory Group operates differently to other Commission expert groups. While some members expressed appreciation of the group's work to date, others felt that it could engage at a deeper level” (The European Commission, 2014d, p. 2).’ This hinders the functioning and the output
of the expert group.The unclear design and mandate implies that the expert group is used as a source of legitimation.
The intensive interest in the expert group might indicate an instrumental function of knowledge utilization. However, one could argue that there is an imbalance between the “produced” knowledge and the real informational needs of the European Commission. This indicates the legitimizing function of knowledge utilization. The legitimizing function of the expert group is also indicated by the focus on publicizing the existence of the group rather than publicizing their findings. Based on the three indicators of the function of knowledge utilization, there could be concluded that the expert group has a legitimizing function.
In April 2014 the final inception report of Ecorys on “Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment (Trade SIA) in support of negotiations of a comprehensive trade and investment agreement between the European Union and the United States of America” is published. This report is produced after Ecorys was awarded with the contract to do a Trade Sustainability Impact Assessment on TTIP. The invitation to tender related to a contract to provide this assessment was published in July 2013 and contains some important information on the organizational structure of the research unit.
‘The mandate given by the DG Trade is to provide a “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).’ Within a year three different self-standing reports have to be produced by the contractor, containing recommendations to maximize the benefits and to minimize the negative consequences of the trade agreement (DG Trade, 2013). Important to note is that the DG Trade (2013), in the invitation stresses that the contractor is not tasked with redoing the analysis of CEPR. Based on the mandate, several conclusions can be made. There could be argued that the mandate shows that there is already a clear political agenda in the invitation letter of the DG Trade. The focus of the contractor should be on supporting the trade negotiations and on making recommendations. One could argue that this mandate indicates the substantiating function of expert knowledge. However, since the assessment should be carried out during the negotiations it can be of great value to the Commission, to increase its output and to strengthen its position in the negotiations. This is an indicator for the instrumental function of knowledge.
By observing the composition of the research unit more conclusions on the function of knowledge utilization can be made. There were some requirements regarding the capacity of the experts involved. The unit should composed of a team leader, senior experts and junior experts, with successively at least ten years, eight years and two years of experience in their
field of interest. The composition of the unit can be considered suitable to fill the knowledge gaps. Based on the structure, there could be argued that the research unit contributes to the problem-solving ability of the European Commission.
The research unit was appointed a steering committee that is tasked with supporting and monitoring the work of the contractor. The committee is responsible for “reviewing and commenting upon the content, quality and reliability of the reports” (DG Trade, 2013, p. 19). The actual role and influence of the committee cannot be assessed based on the available documents. However, one could argue that the steering commission is tasked to make sure that the focus is on producing useful knowledge that can transfer into policies, contributing to the problem-solving abilities. Based on the first two indicators, there could be concluded that the instrumental function of knowledge prevails. The legitimizing function cannot be indicated, but there are some signs of the substantiating function of knowledge. The controlled interest of the DG Trade in terms of reference could indicate the substantiating function of knowledge. The third indicator seems rather useless, since knowledge utilization itself cannot be traced in the documents.
During this time the first signs of increasing issue salience occur. As already shown in table 4.2, TTIP is already mentioned 100 times more by the media than in 2013. Table 4.3 shows that in the second half of 2014 this has increased again. As expected, more contestation over the subject is observed during periods of higher issue salience. In 2014 on July 15, 148 organizations from eighteen different European member states filed an application of the ECI STOP TTIP, in order to stop the TTIP-negotiations (STOP TTIP, n.d.). This does not only highlight the increase of salience, but it also indicates contestation.
Table 4.3 - TTIP mentioned in European media
Country 01-07-2014 until 31-12-2014 France 28 Germany 216 Italy 45 Spain 11 United Kingdom 29 Total 329
In September 2014 the European Commission rejects the ECI, and as a result the ECI becomes a sECI (self-organized Citizen’s initiative) (STOP TTIP, n.d.). With almost a half million signatures collected in October 2014 and a day of protest against TTIP the support for STOP TTIP increased significantly (STOP TTIP, n.d.).
These concerns regarding TTIP were not only raised in public, but also in the expert group. ‘In the expert group meeting of September 2014 the question is raised “what safeguards the Commission would put in place to ensure that no changes to REACH could come about as a result of the TTIP negotiations” (European Commission, 2014e, p. 4).’The response of the commissioner reads that this is not up for discussion in the TTIP negotiations (European Commission, 2014e, p.4). A couple meetings later, in the report of the 12th of December it is noted that “one of the members felt that the consultation should have been about whether or not ISDS should be included in TTIP” (European Commission, 2014f, p. 6). The commissioner responds that ISDS is in the mandate of the European Commission and that therefore the consultation was about how best to include ISDS. The responses of the Commissioner indicate that the Commission sticks to its preferences that are based on the CEPR and HLWG reports. No new research is taken into account and this questions the instrumental use of knowledge by the European Commission. The resources available to the European Commission are not used optimally, doing harm to the problem-solving ability.
The intensive interest in the expert group and the interest in publicizing the meeting minutes contribute to the idea that the expert group is used for legitimizing reasons. However, the CEPR and HLWG reports are used to defend the predetermined preferences of the Commission. To conclude, the Commission uses knowledge during this time both in a legitimizing way as in a substantiating way.
In the period between January and July 2015 signs of increasing issue salience regarding TTIP can be observed. By comparing the data in table 4.4 to the data in table 4.3 there can be concluded that there is increased salience regarding TTIP. With 1.5 million signatures the STOP TTIP (STOP TTIP, n.d.) campaign contributes to the contestation of the subject. That TTIP transfer into a contested subject becomes clear through the draft report of the European Parliament.
Table 4.4 - TTIP mentioned in European media Country 01-01-2015 until 30-06-2015 France 43 Germany 321 Italy 72 Spain 61 United Kingdom 74 Total 571
In February 2015, the European Parliament published a draft report on Parliament's recommendations to the Commission on the negotiations for the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership. The draft report contains some evidence of the contribution of new knowledge. Different concerns regarding TTIP are made clear in the draft report of the European Parliament (2015a), mentioning reports of different parliamentary committees. Also a study done by the European Parliament Research Service is mentioned. This indicates that the EP used more sources of knowledge than it did in 2013, before the start of the TTIP- negotiations. There could be concluded the European Parliament give hearing to issues of high salience, with a more critical position regarding TTIP.
There could be concluded that the period from July 2013 until July 2014 is characterized by slightly increasing issue salience regarding TTIP. Based on the documents available on the expert group and the Sustainable Impact Assessment the legitimizing and instrumental of expert knowledge are observed during this period. The substantiating function is, based on the indicators for the function of knowledge utilization, difficult to trace. The period from July 2014 until July 2015 more issue salience is observed. During this period it is difficult to draw strong conclusions on knowledge utilization in the European institutions. The Commission uses knowledge both in a legitimizing and substantiating way. The European Parliament uses knowledge rather for substantiating purposes than for instrumental or legitimizing purposes.