Negotiators for the EU-Mercosur trade agreement will meet again on 5 and 6 September for a new round of talks. Brazil’s ambassador to the European Union, Pedro Miguel da Costa e Silva, who has already been involved in negotiations between the EU and Mercosur, believes that the prospects for reaching an agreement before the end of the year are good. In his view, this requires a less punitive approach to the issue of sustainable development and compliance with the Paris Agreement. Agence Europe spoke to him about this, as well as EU-Brazil bilateral relations. (Interview by Léa Marchal)
Agence Europe: Do you think it is possible to envisage the conclusion in the near future of discussions on the EU-Mercosur trade agreement?
Pedro Miguel Costa e Silva: Yes, I think it is possible. Obviously, this depends on a number of factors, but it is feasible. I hope by the end of the year. I think both sides have done a lot of work and made a lot of progress in recent years. Next, we need to look at the political conditions for the next stage.
However, a number of recent developments in the EU have complicated the discussions: the law on imported deforestation, the additional instrument that the European Union is calling for on respect for sustainable development, not to mention the reticence of certain countries, such as France.
Obviously, the law to prevent the import of products derived from deforestation is not helping. The other problem is the CBAM (Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, editor’s note). We are not talking about it as much, because the implementation period is longer, but it is a cause for concern for us too, especially for Brazil.
I believe that the secret to achieving a solution that is acceptable to both sides is to achieve balanced outcomes on the agreement, the additional instrument and the implementation of the European Union’s autonomous measures. But I am an optimist. I think this is a very important agreement. There is a strong will on both sides. I think that the majority of member countries also want the agreement. Of course, there are always dissenting voices. This is the reality of this and other agreements. It is part of the game, but I do not think it is something insurmountable.
Another area of tension, which has often been raised by Brazil, is the limited access of agricultural products to the EU. Is your country inclined to bypass this restricted access?
Negotiating access to agricultural markets is complicated in all negotiations. It is not just with the European Union. In an ideal world, we would have free trade and completely open agricultural markets. Having said that, we are not working on or discussing this subject again at the moment.
The part we are currently working on, where we are trying to find the best balance, is the issue of sustainable development. Because our objectives are the same, but we get there by different routes. So we are now trying to finalise this additional instrument to the agreement.
In this document, the European Commission seeks to clarify the obligations arising from the Paris Agreement. What would you like to see included?
The additional instrument cannot solely reflect the European Union’s concerns about the environment and sustainable development. It must also be representative of our vision.
There are different interpretations of the Paris Agreement and we must not forget certain parts. I am talking about the whole issue of cooperation, funding and shared responsibilities, which differ between developing and developed countries. We also need to talk about technology transfer, the recognition of traditional knowledge and the wealth of biodiversity in our countries.
It is unacceptable to use sanctions and punishments to achieve the goal of protecting the planet, fighting climate change and protecting forests. We need cooperation, funding, help, we need to work together.
This is in line with the issues raised by Brazil regarding the regulation banning imports of products derived from deforestation. You have asked the European Commission to postpone the start of implementation of the text, currently scheduled for January 2025. What responses have you received?
I have to admit that recently there has been greater openness and recognition of the fact that there are things to be changed, that there are things that are not in place on the part of the EU. But, unfortunately, that is not enough; our request still stands: to not apply the regulation in January, because the EU is not sufficiently prepared to apply it and we do not know exactly what we have to apply. There are still details and definitions that are not there. We are almost at the beginning of September. This is too little time to be ready to comply with the legislation in January. Applying the regulation will create complications that will affect not only exporting producers in our countries, but also European importers.
We need more dialogue, more cooperation, respect for our existing legislation, and use of our data. By taking all this into account, perhaps we can reduce the possibility of a very negative impact from this legislation.
If the Commission refuses this postponement, is Brazil considering taking the matter to the World Trade Organization?
Obviously, this is a possibility. But I think we need to stress first of all the potential that the text has to create serious problems for producers, but also a situation of tension and trade crisis between Brazil and the EU, and between the EU and Mercosur more widely.
What is more, if we manage to conclude the agreement and have to take it to our congresses or parliaments, having a trade crisis with the EU will not help.
As far as bilateral relations between the EU and Brazil are concerned, given that the last summit took place in 2014, is it not time for another one?
Yes, it is our key objective to have another summit next year. And that, I think, is the goal of both parties.
Apart from that, we have had a Strategic Partnership since 2007, which is a very useful diplomatic construction, because we can include different themes, dialogues on energy, human rights and many other subjects, but we think we can do much better.
For example, on sustainable development, we could increase the level of relationships and dialogue, and have a dialogue at ministerial level.
I believe that the Strategic Partnership has not yet achieved its full potential. And a presidential summit meeting can reinvigorate and give impetus to the relationship.