What was the outcome?
- In the areas of market access for investments and investment protection, approaches on the EU and U.S. sides in earlier free trade and investment protection agreements were compared. Both sides made it clear that any investment protection chapter must preserve the regulatory autonomy of the contracting parties.
- Regarding services, the EU and the United States compared their respective approaches to cross-border services, including financial services, telecommunications and electronic trade. They also set out their respective market access interests in different service sectors. It remains unclear whether financial services will be part of the agreement, as demanded by the EU.
- In the framework of regulatory cooperation, both sides identified sectors which should be given priority in the negotiations: automotive industry, medical equipment, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, pesticides as well as information and communication technologies (ICT).
- In the area of energy and raw materials, talks revolved primarily around common approaches vis-à-vis third countries.
How were interest representatives and stakeholders involved?
At the end of the negotiating week lead negotiators met more than 350 representatives of academia, trade unions, business and non-governmental organizations for an exchange on progress in as well as content and aims of the negotiations.