DG RELEX HOPES TO FINISH EU VERSION OF TEC

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 BRUSSELS 000437 SENSITIVE SIPDIS STATE FOR EUR/ERA, EEB PLEASE PASS TO USTR NSC FOR K KVIEN E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON ECIN PREL SUBJECT: DG RELEX HOPES TO FINISH EU VERSION OF TEC WORKPLAN SOON ¶1. SUMMARY. European Commission (DG RELEX) officials told USEU they are nearly ready to share a draft medium-term workplan for Transatlantic Economic Council/Transatlantic Economic Framework (TEC/TEF) activities with EU Member States. RELEX said they hope the draft workplan could be adopted at a May/June TEC meeting. They said the Commission seeks to focus TEC discussions more on broad strategic issues, were open to holding the next meeting in Washington, and responded favorably to the idea of establishing TEC websites and expanding the agenda to include energy technologies and deeper innovation cooperation. END SUMMARY. COMMISSION NEARLY FINISHED WITH DRAFT WORKPLAN -------------- - ¶2. (U) EconOffs from USEU met with Unit Head for U.S. and Canada Marc Vanheukelen and U.S. Desk Officers Alenka Zajc-Freudenstein and Wiktor Staniecki from the European Commission Directorate for Foreign Relations (RELEX) to discuss the Commission's progress on its preparation of a workplan for Transatlantic Economic Council (TEC) activities. RELEX has been tasked with coordinating the Commission's version of a TEC workplan. ¶3. (SBU) Vanheukelen said he had hoped the workplan would be ready several weeks ago, but RELEX ran into two sets of obstacles that caused significant delays. First, different directorates within the Commission held divergent views of an appropriate time-frame for a mid-term work plan. Some argued that the Commission should be looking ahead as far as 2015. RELEX successfully countered that this would severely limit the Commission's ability to maneuver in the face of currently unpredictable changes, and that looking ahead to 2010-2011 was sufficient and appropriate. ¶4. (SBU) The other delaying factor for the workplan, Vanheukelen continued, has been the lack of information on U.S. views toward a variety of TEC issues after the Presidential transition. As no one in the Commission wants to produce a workplan that the Obama administration declares "dead on arrival," they waited until enough U.S. leadership positions were filled and enough policy statements issued that they could make more educated guesses at future U.S. positions. As a result, RELEX has not yet sent their draft to the Member States for review, and did not have anything in ;writing they could they could provide now. Zajc-Freudenstein said she hoped to have something to discuss with the U.S. soon. (Note: Subsequent to EconOffs meeting with RELEX, EU TEC Co-Chair Verheugen met with his U.S. counterpart Michael Froman. Verheugen's Chief of Staff told USEU Econ Minister that the Commissioner and she were extremely pleased that Froman reaffirmed the importance of the TEC process. Froman and Verheugen agreed the TEC co-chairs will meet in Washington the second half of April (including with industry) and that the whole TEC should meet in Washington in early June. Verheugen reviewed the achievements and lessons learned from the first year and a half, including the need for greater legislator involvement. Froman was open to the TEC being more strategic, and looking to a "Barrier Free Transatlantic Marketplace" by 2015, building in particular on areas where U.S. and EU industry believe our respective regulations achieve the same purpose but with unnecessary divergences in approach. End note.) ¶5. (SBU) RELEX staff welcomed the fact that the U.S. and EU share the view that the Transatlantic Economic Framework has been a useful process, with great potential, but also has room for improvement. Vanheukelen said RELEX had two goals in mind in designing its workplan: a. How to make the TEC more "strategic" in its outlook: Vanheukelen discussed the need to use the time of Commissioners and Cabinet Secretaries wisely. It is important for them to be involved in sectoral and cross-sectoral issues in which they have expertise, but not to force them to wade through details of subjects well outside their portfolios. The Commission suggested that the TEC be split into three sessions, each as long as necessary: an opening plenary, followed by sectoral bilaterals, and then a final plenary to discuss conclusions and next steps. This would allow participants to address both strategic issues and to get into the "nitty-gritty" of specific problems. (COMMENT: This gets us further away from a multidimensional approach. END COMMENT) b. Managing expectations and producing deliverables on both sides: Vanheukelen noted that each side agreed that TEC BRUSSELS 00000437 002 OF 002 had not lived up to its promise, while perhaps not agreeing on the areas where it had not worked well. The Commission has tried to focus on issues with a good chance of producing concrete benefits to the transatlantic economy, he said. They have been trying to adhere as closely as possible in the workplan to topics that meet the criteria agreed upon in the December TEC meeting - discrete, readily identifiable issues which are priorities for the business community and for consumers. OTHER TEC ISSUES -------------- ¶6. (SBU) Vanheukelen noted that "some groups" wanted more participation by Member States in the TEC process. (Note: This refers to an unofficial U.S. request for more Member State involvement. End note.) The RELEX officials said they felt that greater Member State involvement at the TEC meetings would bog down the process of integration and provide little or no benefit. They argued that the Commission works to brief Member States on TEC discussions and get Member States support for major TEC agreements. Having many of the Member States present around the table to argue differing points of view would make reaching agreements next to impossible. ¶7. (SBU) EconOffs discussed the importance to improve U.S. and EU responsiveness to TEC stakeholders. A good example would be by making all TEF and TEC materials available on the web, perhaps on two sites, one maintained by the USG and the other by the EU. Vanheukelen agreed, and said that DG Enterprise was working on such a site. He said while having the sites cross-linked was important, it was equally important not to add a layer of bureaucracy to the TEC process and require negotiations over site content or approval from one side or the other to post documents or comments. ¶8. (SBU) EconOffs suggested the possibility of holding the next TEC in Washington would greatly increase prospects for success, and facilitate attendance by new, overworked U.S. principals. RELEX staff responded that the Commission is already discussing this idea favorably. They agreed it would be of interest to Commissioners to use a Washington TEC to set up bilateral contacts with key members of the U.S. Administration. ¶9. (SBU) The RELEX officials also expressed openness to expanding the TEC agenda, and thought there would be general EU interest in agreeing at the next TEC to approve a new energy technology lighthouse project and to deepen cooperation with the U.S. on innovation. COMMENT -------------- ¶10. (SBU) The RELEX team implied that the Commission draft workplan will cover a limited range of issues, not the entire 34 projects covered by the Framework Agreement. Given their delays in producing the workplan, and the need for thorough discussion and negotiation with the U.S. on such a plan, the U.S. should consider ways to facilitate progress, such incorporating as much as possible of existing workplans already from individual TEC working groups and/or dialogues. MURRAY .