VZCZCXRO0110
RR RUEHAG RUEHDF RUEHIK RUEHLZ RUEHPOD RUEHROV RUEHSR
DE RUEHBS #0202/01 0431248
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 121248Z FEB 09
FM USEU BRUSSELS
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC
INFO RHEHAAA/WHITE HOUSE WASHDC
RHEHNSC/NSC WASHDC
RUEATRS/DEPT OF TREASURY WASHDC
RUEHRC/DEPT OF AGRICULTURE WASHDC
RUEHC/DEPT OF LABOR WASHDC
RUEAUSA/DEPT OF HHS WASHDC
RUCNMEM/EU MEMBER STATES COLLECTIVE
RUCNMEU/EU INTEREST COLLECTIVE

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 03 BRUSSELS 000202 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
NSC FOR KRISTINA KVIEN 
STATE FOR E, EUR/ERA, EEB/TPP 
STATE PASS TO OMB/OIRA Mancini, USTR 
COMMERCE FOR D. DEFALCO 
 
E.O. 12958:  N/A 
 
TAGS: ECON EFIN EIND EAGR ETTC ENRG KIPR PREL EUN
SUBJECT: CONSUMERS: TRANSATLANTIC ECONOMIC COUNCIL NEEDS 
STRONGER CONSUMER FOCUS, MORE TRANSPARENCY 
 
¶1. (SBU) Summary: At a February 4 meeting with USEU, 
TransAtlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) representatives raised 
concerns over and suggested new directions for the 
Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) process.  TACD is 
concerned about the need for more transparency in the drafting 
of the TEC agenda, and the TEC's heavy focus on business 
concerns, when they believe the consumer organizations can 
contribute usefully to transatlantic discussions on 
innovation, energy technologies, IPR and other issues.  USEU 
will continue working with TACD to help build this 
constructive approach.  End Summary. 
 
Background 
---------- 
 
¶2. (SBU) At USEU's initiative, Econoffs met with 
representatives of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue (TACD) 
February 4 as a follow-up to the December Transatlantic 
Economic Council (TEC) meeting.  TACD participants included 
Benedicte Federspiel (TACD Chair), Julian Knott, Willemien Bax 
and Anne-Catherine Lorrain.  Bax is also Deputy Director 
General for the European Consumer's Organization (BEUC). 
(Note: TACD's U.S. and EU co-chairs, along with their 
Transatlantic Business and Legislators' Dialogues (TABD and 
TALD) counterparts, were included in the group of advisors to 
the TEC Co-chairs when the TEC was created in 2007.  End 
note). 
 
Overview 
-------- 
 
¶3. (SBU) Federspiel opened the discussion by welcoming the USG 
outreach to TACD and willingness to discuss a broad range of 
issues related to the U.S.-EU Transatlantic Economic 
Integration Framework (TEF), saying that "this meeting in 
itself sends a message."  After explaining her role (current 
and past president, rotates among members of board, presidency 
alternates between US and EU consumer groups) she addressed 
the TEC.  She said TACD members have both procedural and 
substantive concerns with the TEC as it has operated to date. 
 
¶4. (SBU) The group's main concern, Federspiel said, is around 
a lack of transparency around the TEC process.  This 
encompasses the lack of information exchanged between USG and 
TACD members on what has been discussed and decided, agendas 
and schedules for meetings, what is planned, and who has 
responsibility for various elements of TEC work.  As a result, 
TACD representatives feel their suggestions have not been 
incorporated into the TEC agenda.  She said the process of 
reviewing stakeholder input should be improved. 
 
¶5. (SBU) In addition, Federspiel said, TEC agendas have been 
too heavily focused on issues of interest to business.  Many 
issues that TEC takes up are not "consumer friendly."  She 
suggested that moving EU TEC management away from DG 
Enterprise, which addresses mainly business issues, to the 
Council Secretariat (coordinating body for member state 
issues) or the Commission's interdisciplinary foreign 
relations directorate (DG RELEX) would help address this. 
 
TEC Dynamics 
------------ 
 
¶6. (SBU) USEU presented some initiatives the co-chairs have 
undertaken to improve the TEC, including completing and 
publishing a workplan and establishing parallel USG and 
Commission websites for TEC/TEF documents; in addition, 
Econoffs indicated State and Commerce will work to facilitate 
interagency coordination and continuity.  Willemien asked 
whether the workplan would simply be a list of activities that 
occurred within the TEF framework and a list of additional 
planned activities, or whether we would use it as an 
evaluative tool, to measure the effectiveness of these 
activities.  Econoffs explained that it is likely to be 
primarily a factual inventory of specific project commitments, 
goals, progress to date, and next steps. 
 
BRUSSELS 00000202  002 OF 003 
 
 
 
¶7. (SBU) Knott asked about the various sectoral dialogues 
under the TEC.  Econoffs described the U.S.-EU Investment 
Dialogue and the High-Level Regulatory Cooperation Forum 
(HLRCF).  The HLRCF is strong, and expected to continue with 
or without a TEC process.  Bax said there should be greater 
coordination among the dialogues.  She also said that BEUC had 
been invited to brief EU member state reps who follow 
transatlantic relations (COTRA working group) on their view of 
the TEC.  Federspiel also noted that at the May 2008 TEC 
meeting, (she was unable to attend in December), there were 
definite personality problems among some participants, which 
led to a sometimes uncomfortable situation and less 
productivity for the meeting overall. 
 
TACD Recommendations 
-------------------- 
 
¶8. (SBU) TACD shared several specific recommendations with 
Econoffs.  TACD suggested that actual TEC meetings put a 
greater emphasis on discussion of broad, strategic issues 
(e.g. financial crisis impacts and responses).  Federspiel 
said one challenge in balancing the dialogue would be 
addressing how to improve competitiveness in the transatlantic 
marketplace versus using the political weight of the TEC to 
resolve discreet, thorny, problematic issues.  To this end, 
Federspiel suggested removing poultry from the TEC agenda, 
citing it as an example of an issue that had loomed too large 
in TEC discussions, taking up too much time to the exclusion 
of other issues that could have been addressed.  She said the 
only person in the Commission who supported allowing U.S. 
poultry into the EU market was Verheugen, and as he was not a 
"dictator," he alone could not get poultry accepted, 
especially as 26 member states voted against allowing poultry 
and one, the UK, abstained. 
 
¶9. (SBU) TACD interlocutors again emphasized the need to move 
EU management of the TEC to DG RELEX or the Council 
Secretariat.  Federspiel pointed out that having DG Enterprise 
run the TEC for the Commission has led to an overemphasis on 
business interests on the agenda.  Under this dynamic, it is 
difficult to get buy-in on TEC participation from 
Commissioners like Dimas (Environment) and Vassiliou (Health), 
whom she suggested would not like to put themselves in a 
position of going to the TEC to "be bossed around by 
Verheugen."  She suggested DG RELEX would be a better home for 
the TEC due to its neutrality, but added that "TABD may not 
make the same recommendation." 
 
¶10. (SBU) Federspiel said that perhaps different meeting 
formats could be considered for the TEC, such as a shorter 
plenary and more time allowed for breakout sessions, where 
discussion could be freer.  She lamented the fact that members 
of the TEC advisory committee were allotted five minutes to 
speak at the beginning of the meeting, then sat there silently 
for hours on end Q a wasted opportunity for the advisors to 
provide useful input. 
 
¶11. (SBU) Knott and Federspiel emphasized above all the need 
to broaden the agenda to include "consumer-friendly issues." 
Federspiel noted that TACD had submitted recommendations for 
all previous meetings for the TEC, which included suggestions 
the agenda should not be dominated by "crises of common 
interest" to the consumer and business communities, but should 
also include positive and proactive discussions on topics such 
as nanotechnology, innovation, and sustainability.  Knott 
proposed that the TEC examine the connection between 
innovation, access to technology and potential reexamination 
of IP rights, particularly for developing countries, as well 
as general access to knowledge.  Lorrain added that patent 
harmonization would be interesting, along with a discussion on 
copyrights and other current IPR issues. 
 
Next Steps 
---------- 
 
 
BRUSSELS 00000202  003 OF 003 
 
 
¶12. (SBU) On next steps, Knott agreed to update and send USEU 
four papers on TEC issues, along with other recommendations. 
All agreed on the usefulness of the meeting and voiced their 
commitment to reinforce the dialogue between the Mission and 
TACD, and improve communication.  TACD thanked USEU again for 
proactively reaching out to TACD on these issues.  Federspiel 
closed by noting that TACD would hold its annual meeting June 
7-10, 2009 in Brussels, to which the Mission and senior USG 
TEC officials would be invited.  She suggested that this 
provided a great opportunity to meet with Commission leaders 
on TEC issues.  (Note: TACD formerly held meetings twice 
annually, one in DC and the other in Brussels, but for 
budgetary reasons, can now only do one per year. End note.) 
 
Comment 
------- 
 
¶13. (SBU) TACD clearly feels the advent of a new U.S. 
administration offers them the chance to correct what they see 
to have been an excessive focus on business issues and 
concerns in prior TEC meetings.  TACD recommendations on TEC 
structural reform should be considered thoroughly as part of a 
larger process of USG review of the TEC's continuation, 
functioning and structure.  USEU will work to strengthen our 
dialogue with the group and will work to integrate it more 
effectively into the network of TEC stakeholders. 
 
MURRAY