On Wednesday 3 September, the European Commission presented the text of the trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur countries, “which includes the principle of a reinforced safeguard clause for agricultural products. This is a step in the right direction”, said Laurent Saint-Martin, the French Minister for Foreign Trade, who said that these guarantees made it possible “to open up while protecting our sensitive sectors” (see EUROPE 13700/2) (see other news).
The French minister added that France would now “examine the details of what has been proposed, to ensure that the system is effective”. Until now, France has been leading the fight among the 27 EU countries against this agreement.
Among other EU leaders hostile to the agreement, the Polish Prime Minister, Donald Tusk, announced that Poland would oppose it.
Italy’s position was eagerly awaited. It remains ambiguous. The Italian government “welcomes the inclusion of a package of additional safeguards to protect European farmers”, according to an official statement. These guarantees provide for “a monitoring and rapid intervention mechanism in the event of price disturbances, including at the level of an individual Member State, the strengthening of phytosanitary controls on goods entering the territory in order to ensure full compliance with EU standards and regulations, and a commitment to provide adequate compensation for any agricultural sectors that may be affected”, according to the office of Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni. Italy “will assess the effectiveness of the additional safeguards provided and whether or not to support final approval of the EU-Mercosur agreement”.
Unsurprisingly, Friedrich Merz, the German Chancellor, welcomed the fact that the Commission had “approved the free trade agreement with Mercosur and that negotiations are entering their final phase. This will strengthen our economy in Germany and in Europe”, he said. Spain also welcomed the Commission’s adoption of the text.
The agreement will be an “excellent opportunity to strengthen the competitiveness” of the EU and “open up [its] markets to new products and services”, said the President of the European Council, António Costa.
European Parliament divided. Among the supporters of the agreement within the European Parliament, the Chair of the Committee on International Trade, Bernd Lange (S&D, German), noted that “in the end, the text was changed. For example, it’s the first time ever that the obligations of the Paris Agreement are an integrated part of the trade agreement. So, the failure of reaching the commitments of the Paris Agreement could lead to a partial or totally suspension of the agreement. And this applies not just to the Mercosur Community, but also to the European Union and the discussion about reaching the intermediary goals we have set here as well. So I hope that we can conclude and ratify the agreement quite soon”.
Among the dissatisfied MEPs, Céline Imart (EPP, French) spoke of “betrayal”. The Commission is promising to activate safeguard measures to protect farmers, if necessary, but “this promise will be in vain as long as the agreement with the Mercosur countries is not reopened. Worse still, they will be able to have recourse to the rebalancing mechanism if a European measure were to hinder the full implementation of the agreement”, stressed the MEP.
On behalf of the Greens/EFA group, Belgian MEP Saskia Bricmont reiterated that this new trade agreement was “harmful for people and the planet, but also for Europe’s strategic autonomy”.
Piotr Müller (ECR, Polish) warned that “Poland and its farmers will pay a high price”.
Within the Renew Europe group, MEPs are divided. Several are in favour, including Germany’s Svenja Hahn and Estonia’s Urmas Paet, while France’s Marie-Pierre Vedrenne said she expected “guarantees and effective safeguard mechanisms”.
The draft additional legal act, incorporating safeguard mechanisms to temporarily limit imports of sensitive products (beef, poultry, sugar), should they threaten European production, has aroused the scepticism of Belgian Benoît Cassart: “These clauses are legally very difficult to activate and, when they are, it is often too late. We saw this with sugar in the face of Ukrainian imports: the clause was eventually applied, but in the meantime, twenty sugar factories have closed”, he pointed out.
Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, French) said that the agreement between France and the Commission to put in place a legislative proposal independent of the initial agreement - designed to introduce a safeguard clause in the event of a disruption in agricultural prices - “goes in the right direction”. However, he stressed that “many uncertainties remain”. This proposal has not yet been officially submitted: it will have to be approved by both the EU Council and the European Parliament (co-decision procedure). Furthermore, “we don’t know how the Mercosur countries will react” as they had already refused to include such a clause in the agreement, added Mr Canfin.
Court of Justice. Mr Canfin also referred to the initiative by several MEPs from different countries and political groups to refer the matter to the Court of Justice of the EU. This move concerns an element of the agreement - the rebalancing mechanism - which seems to pose a problem from the point of view of European sovereignty and could be contrary to the EU treaties, said the MEP. For example, Brazil could introduce financial compensation, such as higher tariffs, in response to EU environmental measures like the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism, legislation on deforestation or an agricultural ‘mirror clause’. This “transparent and transnational” group comprises 26 MEPs, including Krzysztof Hetman (EPP, Polish), Raphaël Glucksmann (S&D, French), Manon Aubry (The Left, French), Marta Wcisło (EPP, Polish), Danilo Della Valle (The Left, Italian) and Thomas Waitz (Greens/EFA, Austrian).
As far as farming organisations are concerned, the Confédération paysanne (France) has reiterated its opposition to this free trade agreement. European farmers are called upon to demonstrate against this agreement on Thursday 4 September at Place du Luxembourg in Brussels.
The draft safeguard clause, while representing a step forward, “is not sufficient to support agricultural and agri-food businesses in the face of the possible repercussions of the agreement, because there is no provision for its automatic activation, which would make it truly effective”, deplored Coldiretti, the Italian organisation.
On the contrary, SpiritsEUROPE is calling on the EU Council to approve the EU-Mercosur agreement without delay, as is the Comité Européen des Entreprises du Vin (CEEV).
BusinessEurope also published a new report highlighting “the many benefits of the agreement for various sectors” (https://aeur.eu/f/i99 ).
According to the NGO Friends of the Earth Europe, this agreement “would favour multinationals at the expense of citizens by intensifying trade in pesticides banned in the EU, in products linked to deforestation (soya, beef, ethanol), and by reinforcing an agro-industrial model that is destructive to the climate, indigenous peoples and small-scale farmers”. (Original version in French by Lionel Changeur)