CURRENT AFFAIRS: EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement

<< Back to Newsletter

What is the future of Mercosur in Europe?

In a tense geopolitical context, the European Commission – in its determination to swiftly conclude the Free Trade Agreement with Mercosur and impose the strict timetable demanded by the South American countries after 25 years of negotiations – is putting increasing pressure on the European capitals that are still holding out as well as on the European Parliament. This sudden haste comes at the expense of the time that a balanced negotiation needs, at a time when several MEPs are struggling to obtain truly solid guarantees, including on safeguard clauses to protect European farmers. As for the guarantees put forward – safeguard clauses, support mechanisms, strengthening the customs union – they are widely perceived as purely symbolic. They are considered to be insufficient and are unlikely to prevent the expected negative effects on European agricultural markets.

Large parts of the European Union seem to be prepared to undermine the Union's economic model, legal norms, internal market and sustainability objectives in order to exist on the international scene. In this trade strategy driven by the Commission, agriculture serves as an adjustment variable even though major agricultural powers such as China and the United States openly practise protectionism. Persuaded to consolidate the EU's role as a major trading bloc, most European leaders seem to overestimate the benefits of opening up without tangible customs duties or legal guarantees, at the risk of undermining the EU's economic and food sovereignty. For the European Commission, the proposed agreement can also be justified by access to strategic raw materials for certain industrial sectors, particularly green technologies, in a context of increased competition with China.

The treaty would mainly benefit exporting industries (French CAC 40 and German manufacturers), while the agricultural sector would bear the costs and make the sacrifices. However, the expected gains in European agri-food exports are limited to a few niche products (chocolate, spirits, olive oil), while sensitive sectors such as livestock farming, which have already been weakened, would be directly exposed to unfair competition that safeguard mechanisms cannot possibly regulate.

For France, the pursuit of free trade seems less like an opportunity than an additional risk to its virtuous agricultural model and agri-food industry. Paris has been unable to defend its demands for a long time, a sign of a lasting refusal to protect agricultural sectors of excellence, which are nevertheless strategic. The situation in France, which is already marked by an alarming agri-food trade balance and lack of investment to remain competitive, makes the economic argument put forward by the Commission particularly questionable. The promises of investments or relocation to Mercosur are illusory and are reminiscent of the precedent of the textile sector, which has largely relocated to Asia.

The proposed EU-Mercosur partnership agreement thus illustrates the growing chasm between the aspirations of the people – good quality food, local production and respect for the environment – and the choices made by their political representatives. The first victims will be not only European and French farmers, but also consumers, especially the poorest ones.

Amélie REBIÈRE (France)

Member, EESC Civil Society Organisations' Group
Member, Rural Affairs Coordination (CR)

Farmer in Corréze 

© EU/EESC