Over a dozen EU agriculture ministers criticised the content of the draft trade agreement between the EU and the Mercosur countries on Monday 15 July in Brussels, saying it could have a negative impact on certain sectors and on EU environmental and health standards (see EUROPE 12296/8).
After the Commission presented the outcome of the negotiations on the EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement, only the Spanish, German, Swedish and Danish ministers welcomed the terms of the agreement.
Germany referred to an agreement of major economic and strategic importance. Denmark and Sweden welcomed the strong environmental and climate dimension (compliance with the Paris Agreement). The chapter on ‘sustainable development’ must be implemented properly, “if we want this agreement to be successful”, Germany said. For Spain, this is a historic agreement, although it must be balanced for the EU's agricultural sector.
Agriculture Commissioner, Phil Hogan, tried to reassure ministers, explaining: “There will be no product that will arrive in the EU from the Mercosur countries without complying with existing EU food safety standard”, as well as with the EU's “climate and environmental ambition”. He also indicated that it would take “two or three years” before the texts were submitted to the EU Council for approval. He promised that the Commission will publish an update of its study on the cumulative impact of trade agreements in the agricultural sector in 2020.
For many ministers, the safeguard clause in the free trade agreement seems insufficient to protect the EU's sensitive agricultural sectors.
Safeguard clause. Poland strongly criticised the outcome of the negotiations and even referred to the problems of deforestation in these Mercosur countries.
Italy also considered that the agreement was not balanced and that “our interests do not seem to have been taken into account” in several sectors. Austria considered that it was necessary to check that market conditions would be fair and that “our red lines” would not be crossed (animal welfare, environmental standards, safeguard clause).
France recalled that farmers were very worried and will launch a study on the effects of the agreement on the country's agricultural sectors. It will be necessary to verify that the environmental conditionality of the agreement is sufficiently solid, that the Paris agreement will be properly implemented and that the safeguard clause works well to avoid market disruption, the French minister said in essence.
Greece asked to assess the EU's ability to import products and asked that the CAP be equipped with effective risk management tools.
The need to ensure compliance with the precautionary principle was raised by Austria and Slovenia.
Sensitive sectors. Many delegations expressed concerns about the impact of concessions on sensitive EU sectors.
Poland mentioned sugar, beef, poultry and bioethanol. France talked about beef, poultry and sugar. Hungary referred to poultry, honey and ethanol. Italy referred to rice, poultry, sugar and sparkling wine. “There could be a market imbalance in the wine sector”, according to Portugal. Slovakia mentioned beef, poultry and sugar, for Bulgaria, it was honey. Ireland talked a lot about the worrisome impact on the beef sector. Croatia mentioned sugar and meat. Slovenia talked about beef and poultry. For Belgium, the sectors to be monitored are poultry, beef, sugar and ethanol and compliance with the Paris Agreement, as well as ensuring animal and plant health. Romania listed poultry, honey, beef, sugar and ethanol and denounced the massive use of pesticides in Mercosur countries. Slovakia mentioned beef, poultry and sugar.
One billion euros. Several delegations (Spain, Hungary, Belgium, Croatia...) asked the European Commission to provide more details on the €1 billion in aid that would be released in the event of market disruption in some EU countries. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)