CGE Model
2.3.3. Stakeholder consultations
Brief overview of the SIA consultation process
A key part of the SIA process is consultations with stakeholders. Consultation with key stakeholders as experts is an important source of evidence and advice for the ex ante assessment of impacts.
Consultation also contributes to the process of good governance, by strengthening the accountability and transparency of the assessment. Detailed and thorough stakeholder consultation is vital to a successful impact assessment, and has proven to be an integral part of the data-collecting for this report as well as provided information and feedback on the likely impacts and scenarios studied.
A range of consultation methods was used in preparing the Inception, Interim Technical and Final Reports. A project website (http://www.eucanada-sia.org) was created at the inception of the project and was used to create awareness of the SIA and to elicit feedback from stakeholders. Each report was put on the website and comments were received on the reports during a specified consultation period.
Comments received were considered by the study team.6 Civil society meetings were held in Brussels (3) and Ottawa (1) to facilitate face-to-face dialogue between the study team and stakeholders, and to elicit feedback on the draft reports.7 In-depth consultations were undertaken via telephone, email and person-to-person interviews.
The extensive stakeholder network developed for the consultation process is described in Annex 5. The same annex summarises the feedback from civil society and business groups in particular, and provides a summary of where such information was incorporated into the report.
While a large number of stakeholders were contacted for the SIA, not all stakeholders actually provided input to the study team. In some cases, groups interested in the SIA chose to place their comments on their own websites or on mediums outside those related to the SIA consultation process rather than providing substantive comments directly to the study team. Nonetheless, the study team did closely consider the views of these organisations by reviewing their publicly available reports, and where appropriate, were used as part of the evidence used in the assessment.8 Also, while a wide range of stakeholders responded positively to the notification of the civil society meetings in Brussels as well as the Ottawa workshop, and confirmed their attendance, not all actually attended the meetings.9
A variety of stakeholders representing a number of interests were closely involved in the SIA process.
Stakeholders involved in IPR matters were the most active in the consultation process. The study team received numerous comments from stakeholders in the EU and Canada both for and against certain provisions in an IPR Chapter in CETA. A range of stakeholders in different agricultural industries in both Europe and Canada provided valuable feedback to the study team through a variety of consultation methods. Useful comments were received from groups representing a number of other sectoral and cross-cutting issues.
Despite attempts to consult a wide array of environmental NGOs and academics in Canada and Europe on the environmental effects of CETA, the study team received only limited feedback from environmental stakeholders. A number of the most active stakeholders in the field were contacted to identify academics or ENGOs who would be working on the topic or who would be interested in
6 Details of the comments received from stakeholders are given in Annex 4.
7 Minutes of these meetings are included in Annex 4.
8 These sources are cited in the report.
9 The onset of adverse weather conditions on the day of the Ottawa workshop affected attendance.
34 providing comments. In Canada, these experts were probed to provide an explanation for the apparent lack of interest among environmental stakeholders for CETA, which contrasts with the mobilisation that occurred with NAFTA twenty years ago, and more recently with the Doha Round WTO negotiation and proposed Free Trade Agreement of the Americas (FTAA). In Europe, little or no response was received from the stakeholders contacted.10
Several academic and institute-based experts, additional to the stakeholder groups described above, also provided helpful comments on the SIA, in particular on the investment section. These comments are cited in the relevant sections.
Consultation tools and timing
The SIA involved phases of consultations, organised using the mechanisms listed below. In all phases the study team actively sought the comments from stakeholders. Additionally, an open consultation process was instituted, where any stakeholders could send feedback through to the study team.
Three major periods were used to collect feedback in each consultation phase. The first phase was opened from early August to mid October 2010, whereas feedback received during this phase was considered for inclusion in the Inception Report. The second phase was from October 2010 to 11 March 2011, whereas feedback received during this phase was considered for inclusion in the Interim Report.
And feedback received from 11 March to 11 April 2011 was considered for inclusion in the Final Report.
Steering Committee meetings – Brussels
Steering committee meetings were held with members of the European Commission at each phase of the study. The comments from these meetings have been considered in revising study reports. The final steering committee meeting was held on 30 March 2011 to discuss the draft Final Report.
Civil Society Meetings - Brussels
Public meetings were held throughout the study. The meetings are organised by the European Commission and are located in Brussels and involve Brussels-based civil society and unions.
The first civil society meeting was held in Brussels on 7 September 2010 where the contents of the draft Inception Report were presented including its process, purpose, methodology, timing and consultation activities. And an update on negotiations was provided. The minutes from this meeting, including a list of attendees, can be found in the second table in Annex 5.
The final civil society meeting took place on 30 March 2011 after publication of the draft Final Report.
Representatives from the EC provided an update on the CETA negotiations, while the study team reviewed the SIA methodology, and provided an overview of the draft Final Report’s findings in terms of its macro-economic assessment, sectoral assessments, and cross-cutting issues assessments. The ETUC and EUROCOMMERCE gave brief presentations at the meeting. The study team and EC representatives answered questions from stakeholders regarding CETA and the SIA in particular. While 39 stakeholders publicly registered for the meeting, only fourteen attended in addition to the EC and study team representatives. The minutes from this meeting, including a list of attendees, can be found in Annex 5.
10 Some hypotheses for the lack of feedback from environmental stakeholders in Canada in particular are that domestic issues, including climate and transportation policies take most importance; that CETA represents a small portion of Canada’s trade;
and that Europe is generally perceived as an environmental leader. For these reasons, CETA appears to generate little interest or worries in the environmental community.
35 Stakeholder Workshop – Ottawa, Canada
A full one-day consultation workshop, organised by the study team, was held on November 26th in Ottawa, Canada. A total of 71 stakeholder groups were formally invited to the EU-Canada SIA Ottawa Workshop. A balanced selection of stakeholders was proposed by the study team based upon consultations with stakeholders in the earlier phases of the SIA and knowledge of the major issues in the SIA, and discussed with the EC Delegation in Canada. Invitees included 38 industry and trade associations, from a variety of industries, from agricultural sub-sectors to IPR; three major labour organisations, from public workers’ unions to unions for workers in the private sector; eleven environmental organisations, from ENGOs to university-based research institutions; four groups focused on minority rights; and ten other interest groups, with a variety of different focuses. Of these 71 groups, 32 representatives confirmed attendance to the workshop. Perhaps due to light snow the day of the meeting, only thirteen of these representatives, in addition to the EC and study team representatives, attended the workshop.
During the workshop, the project experts presented the preliminary findings of the Interim Report. The workshop began with an introduction from the lead EC representative present on the CETA negotiations.
Dr. Colin Kirkpatrick and Dr. Selim Raihan then provided an overview of the SIA methodology, and discussed it with stakeholders. Dr. Raihan then provided an overview of the macro-economic assessment in the SIA, and responded to stakeholder questions on the assessment. Then, Dr. Érick Duchesne, Adam Bleser and Karel Mayrand presented on the agricultural, PAPs and fisheries sector assessments and answered related questions from stakeholders. Adam Bleser and Karel Mayrand then presented on the industrial products and services sectors, and answered related questions from stakeholders. Lastly, Dan Prud’homme presented on public procurement, investment, competition policy and the other cross-cutting issues, and answered related questions from stakeholders.
Overall, discussion and debate was productive. Many of those who attended commented at-length on the work delivered within the Preliminary Findings document sent to those interested in the workshop.
The workshop closed with remarks on ensuring civil society input into the SIA.
The workshop agenda, list of invitees, list of confirmed participants, and meeting minutes can be found in Annex 4 of this report. Comments from that workshop were incorporated in this report in relevant sections.
Digital Consultation Website
DS launched a project website to support the project’s visibility as well as to assist in facilitating the collection of stakeholder feedback (see www.eucanada-sia.org). The website is updated to coincide with the completion of each phase of the study and relevant deliverables. It provides all relevant information concerning the SIA’s progress, reports, meeting minutes and relevant contact information.
To date, the website has received 1235 hits with a bounce rate of 46.8%. The average time spent viewing the site is 20 minutes and 50 seconds.
36 Snapshot of EU-Canada SIA website:
Discussion Forum
The website’s Discussion Forum also serves as a communications platform through which European and Canadian, as well as American and other stakeholders’ from other countries that convincingly make the case that they will be impacted by CETA are able to able to provide feedback into the EU-Canada Trade SIA.
Electronic Trade SIA Newsletter
Another aspect of digital consultation is the project’s Trade SIA newsletter/email update which is disseminated to the project’s consultation network. This newsletter is distributed electronically at key points during the study, coinciding with the release of each report.
Interviews and Email Feedback
In the course of the study, more than 350 civil society organisations, trade associations, academic institutions and government agencies were contacted to participate in telephone consultations. Initially, the response rate was high with close to 70 replies in the first week. However, the response rate subsequently declined11 although a number of key stakeholder interviews were conducted via telephone and numerous respondents communicated their positions via email.
For a complete list of stakeholders contacted please see Annex 5.
11 Interest may have waned when it became known that the study team did not have access to the content of CETA negotiations beyond what was publicly available
37
2.4. Analysis
The results from the CGE model, E3MG model, desk research and consultations were analysed according to the principles of “causal chain analysis,” with more specific forms of analysis employed under this umbrella. Different types of analyses were employed for different issues. As relevant, ‘comparative analysis’ was employed. Even more specifically, policy analysis incorporating socio-economic, economic/statistical, and legal analysis was used. All analysis was organised in terms of the relevant indicators.
The main purpose of the evidence-based assessment in the SIA is to identify where significant impacts are expected to occur, i.e. the most important ways in which the trade agreement being analysed will change the status quo/baseline per relevant indicators. The significance of an impact has been evaluated by expert opinion relative to an appropriate context-specific benchmark, based on the research and analysis described in the methodology herein. Impacts identified as less than significant are still discussed as relevant, particularly if stakeholders, for example, allege that such impacts will be significant. Also, these impacts may receive the bulk of attention in an analysis under a certain indicator if there are not more significant impacts to be discussed under such an indicator. As a rule of thumb, within each indicator, impacts with comparatively less significance receive less discussion than those with more significance. The below table provides an overview of how different degrees of significance for impacts are described in this SIA. Once a level of significance is determined, the positive and/or negative dimensions of such impacts are described to the extent feasible.
Core level of impact According keywords in SIA
Significant significant, or substantial
Moderately significant < significant moderate/moderately significant,
notable/noteworthy, or “not insignificant”
Less than moderately significant > insignificant marginal, minor, or limited
Insignificant non-existent → negligible→ insignificant/not
significant*
* “→” indicates increasing degree of significance among keywords
Core form of analysis
As envisaged in the SIA Handbook, causal chain analysis was the fundamental form of all analysis employed in this SIA. Causal chain analysis entails reviewing impacts from a baseline and subsequently along a sequence of potential resulting impacts. This process was followed for each individual indicator employed in the assessments, as indicators are only useful in predicting future trends in so much as they first consider past and present trends in the absence of the trade agreement (the baseline).
Subsequently, making a causal link between existing (past and present) trends and potential future trends requires a thorough risk assessment: identifying possible risks, and analysing the linkages between the causes/sources of risks and the possible damages.
More specific forms of analysis
‘Comparative analysis’ was a key tool used in a significant portion of the economic, social and environmental sustainability impact analyses for this SIA. Comparative analysis as used in this SIA
38 constitutes reviewing trends on similar indicators with those employed in this SIA after signature of trade/economic agreements or policies comparable to CETA (in terms of breadth and scope) with comparable countries (considering the level of development of the EU and Canada). Herein, efforts were made to ensure that (a) the indicators themselves, (b) the provisions of the trade/economic agreements or policies, and (d) circumstances of the countries (in terms of size and structure of economy, and nuances in the economic, social and environmental spheres) that were used are all relevant to an analysis of CETA. Assessments on different components of NAFTA, for example, were often used as a foundation for comparative analyses. The information used to create these comparisons was largely taken from desk research and consultations.
Specific approaches to analysis per each of the 3 pillars of sustainability are as follows:
Economic assessments in the sectoral analyses focused largely on the results of the CGE model and incorporated information from desk research and consultations; while economic assessments in the cross-cutting issues section focused more on statistical and economic analysis built on information outside the CGE model, including desk research and consultations.
The social assessments in the sectoral analyses were based on the potential outcomes arising from estimated economic impacts, particularly in terms of primary concerns over employment creation and job displacement, as well as the impact on labour standards, health, security and culture.
The social assessments in the cross-cutting issues sections were made through a variety of different forms of analysis depending on the issues, including, among others, socio-economic analysis following the principles of comparative analysis.
The environmental assessments in the sectoral and cross-cutting issues sections were made through a variety of different forms of analysis depending on the issues, including, among others, statistical analysis of the results of the E3MG model, and comparative analysis.
Legal analysis was applied in assessing all three pillars of sustainability specifically in the government procurement, investment, competition policy, and IPR sections of the cross-cutting issues assessment.
Such analysis was combined with the other aforementioned forms of analysis to provide a comprehensive assessment.