The European Parliament’s Committee on International Trade (INTA) was once again sharply divided at a hearing on the EU/Mercosur trade agreement on Tuesday 24 June. The atmosphere was even tense as the two camps for and against the agreement presented emotionally-charged counter-arguments.
As far as the economic sectors were concerned, representatives of the automotive industry and wine production were present, but several MEPs regretted that farmers were unable to make their voices heard at the hearing.
Agricultural imports. Several MEPs reiterated their concern about the impact of agricultural imports from Mercosur, which do not comply with European standards and contribute to deforestation in South America. The European poultry, beef, sugar, maize and bioethanol industries have been mentioned as sectors that will suffer particularly badly.
“Do you think it is worth sacrificing all this in the name of a potential 0.1% increase in GDP?”, questioned MEP and farmer Benoît Cassart (Renew Europe, Belgian).
Several Polish MEPs supported him. One of them, Bogdan Zdrojewski (EPP), said that his country had every intention of opposing the agreement. The day before, some EU agriculture ministers had voiced their opposition to the agreement (see EUROPE 13665/13).
For Irish MEP, Barry Cowen (Renew Europe), it’s not just a question of economic impact, but above all of production methods that are too different: “I don’t think the commitments in the agreement are enough”.
In response to these arguments, the Chair of the INTA Committee, Bernd Lange (S&D, German), pointed to a double standard among European farmers: “Last year, European farmers imported three million tonnes of low-cost soya from Brazil, without questioning the situation there”.
The Secretary General of the Comité Européen des Entreprises Vins (CEEV), Ignacio Sánchez Recarte, stressed the importance of respecting the geographical indications included in the agreement, which must be secured in South America.
Finally, according to the Brazilian ambassador to the EU, Pedro Miguel Da Costa e Silva, the arguments against the agreement are based on a series of false reports. “We are in compliance with European rules and standards”, he said. He then listed a few examples of agricultural production in Mercosur that he believes is even more virtuous than in Europe.
Economic pragmatism vs. human rights. Several speakers, including representatives of the automotive industry and wine producers, as well as the Dean of the Paris School of International Affairs at the ‘Institut d'Études Politiques’ and former Spanish minister, Arrancha González, defended the economic benefits expected from the agreement.
The Director General of the European Automobile Manufacturers’ Association (ACEA), Sigrid de Vries, described the agreement’s potential for her industry. The agreement “would eliminate tariffs currently running at up to 35%. We expect our exports to triple by 2040”.
On the other side of the argument, however, a number of MEPs and representatives of civil society have criticised the impact of increased trade between the two blocs on the environment and human rights. The representative of the NGO Greenpeace, Lis Cunha, spoke of a matter of life and death for the indigenous peoples threatened by the expansion of agricultural land. Belgian MEP Saskia Bricmont (Greens/EFA) pointed out that last week she had received a delegation from this population at the European Parliament, who were also calling for the agreement to be rejected.
On the other hand, her colleague Francisco Assis (S&D, Portuguese) considered that indigenous peoples support the agreement. “I’ve met many of them, and they think the agreement protects them”, he said.
Timetable. The Deputy Director-General of the European Commission’s Directorate-General for International Trade, Leopoldo Rubinacci, confirmed that the proposals for signing and concluding the agreement would be adopted by the European Commission before the end of June.
Some MEPs regretted the lack of information so far on the timetable, but also and above all on the form the agreement would take. Mr Rubinacci did not respond to this second point. But, as we had already reported, the Commission is planning to separate the trade part of the Treaty, in order to circumvent ratification by all national parliaments. (Original version in French by Léa Marchal)