What one wants is unacceptable to the other (and vice versa). The hesitations, delays, and little argumentative sentences the authorities on both sides periodically throw at each other confirm that negotiations between the EU and Mercosur are still running into serious obstacles. Both sides stress their will to reach agreement and underline its meaning and importance, but in reality, the economic content is still the subject of fundamental differences of opinion, for a very simple reason which nobody wishes openly to acknowledge, which is:
a) what Mercosur, led by Brazil, considers to be the priority objective of the whole round of negotiations is unacceptable to Europe. Mercosur is looking for substantial concession on the access of its agricultural products to the European market, with a view to free trade in agriculture;
b) what Europe is asking for in exchange for these trade concessions has raised serious concern on the other side, on the gradual opening up of Mercosur countries' markets in terms of public procurement, investment and services (maritime transport, financial services, telecommunications).
Justified reservations. I feel that these reservations and concerns are justified, on both sides. The EU cannot satisfy Brazilian and Argentinean requests in the agricultural sector. On the other hand, broad liberalisation of financial markets, services and access to public procurement contracts could be dangerous to countries whose economies and currencies are not yet sufficiently consolidated. In these circumstances, on first sight the only reasonable solution would be to curtail aspirations, on both sides. But this would lead to problems in terms of compatibility with international rules (WTO rules), not to mention the fact that the strengthening of ties between Europe and Latin America is an essential objective, politically, culturally and historically, and should not go by the wayside.
The limits. I believe that the timetable for concluding negotiations in October will not be respected. The presentation of respective offers in the above-mentioned areas, scheduled for late last week, has been postponed for a few days, but "with no fixed date" (see our bulletin of 17 April, page 8). Next week, European Commissioner for Agriculture, Franz Fischler, will be in Brazil to discuss the agricultural plank. Mr Fischler and Pascal Lamy, who is in charge of negotiations overall, are aware of the feasible limits of the agricultural offer: increase in certain quotas, reduction of various import duties, but nothing even approaching integral free trade, which was roundly condemned by both Commissioners in principle when they said, quite unequivocally, that global free trade in the agricultural sector should be subject to several requirements: respect for environmental, quality and social standards, protection of designations of origin, keeping "preferences" for the poorest countries, the right of all populations to food autonomy. Furthermore, the cross-cutting questions (such as the gradual removal of "export refunds") can only be negotiated multilaterally, in a WTO framework.
For the next Commission. Whilst stating that no agreement would be possible without substantial European offers in agriculture, Brazilian Foreign Minister, Celso Amorin, made it clear that his country could possibly agree to a certain curtailment of its ambitions. Re-read his statements (our bulletin of 16 April, p.13): "we will probably have to ask for more than the EU will offer in agriculture. By the same token the EU will probably ask for more in other areas". He added: "On both sides there is a will to avoid the most delicate questions, which will lead us to concentrate on that which is manageable". How else can this last sentence be interpreted than as an invitation for sights to be lowered? No doubt several European economic and industrial circles will insist that the EU keep its demands of Mercosur at the same level in terms of public procurement and services, in exchange for additional concessions in agriculture. However, a global vision of Europe's interests (not just economic, but also environmental, social, historical) should lead to recognition that Europe must maintain efficient agriculture, covering the whole of the territory. I repeat: I do not believe that negotiations can be concluded in October. It will be the job of the next European Commission to continue them, in the hope that the new Commissioners will be as aware as Pascal Lamy and Franz Fischler of the need to protect nature, biodiversity, territorial balance, the countryside, the traditions and history of Europe, and therefore its agriculture.
(F.R.)