The objectives of the TTIP stem from the findings of a joint US-EU High Level Working Group (HLWG) on jobs and growth formed following a November 2011 summit between the US and the EU . Tasked with identifying ways to grow trade and investment, the HLWG concluded that TTIP negotiations “should aim to achieve ambitious outcomes in three broad areas: a) market access; b) regulatory issues and non-tariff barriers; and c) rules, principles and new ways of cooperation to address the shared challenges and opportunities of global trade”. The proposed benefits of TTIP, according to numerous commissioned studies, are quite substantial. According to the German Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology, a US/EU TTIP agreement could generate a free trade area (FTA) equal to almost 50% of global economic productivity. If the TTIP negotiations achieve the goals identified by the HLWG, then this FTA would far surpass all other trade agreements in which the United States is currently involved or under negotiation. A US Congressional study proposes a combined trade and investment output of TTIP of $4.7 trillion compared to $1.5 trillion for the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the largest free trade agreement currently in force in the United States. The second objective of the TTIP negotiations – reducing regulatory issues and non-tariff barriers (NTBs) – represent the most important, but also most difficult, part of the negotiations. As European Trade Commissioner De Gucht commented in February 2014, it is “technically and politically difficult”, and it is within this area of ​​regulatory disputes and non-tariff barriers that sustainable development exists. Sustainable development is a broad term, but the European Council defined it succinctly in its Presidential Conclusions in Gothenburg, Sweden, in June 2001: “to me… in the middle of the paper… regulatory issues and non-tariff issues TTIP through mutual recognition agreements (acceptance of a good or service based on a “tested once” standard by each party) or harmonization (same standards for both the EU and the US), but this may not be feasible. As U.S. senators pressure U.S. trade officials to “solve . . . unjustified agricultural barriers as part of the FTA negotiations on both an individual and systematic basis,” the EU Trade Representative is forced to temper criticism by stating unequivocally that “no standards in Europe will be lowered as a result of this trade deal.” This tug of war between free trade and standards is described by Zaiki Laidi as “trade liberalization at odds with strong social, cultural and identity issues”, and it is precisely the EU's sustainable development standards that are being called into question. tested in the TTIP negotiations.