EU-Mercosur free trade agreement: Profits for a few - threats for the majority of our people
All the versions of this article: [English] [Español]
EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement
Profits for a Few -Threats for the Majority of our People
Declaration from the Social Movements and CSOs from the Mercosur
October 22nd 2004
Summary
While negotiations for a Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) remain on hold in
relation to the US elections, the governments of the Mercosur countries (Argentina,
Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay) are hastily negotiating a free trade agreement (FTA)
with the EU that is also harmful for the region. Negotiators are rushing to meet an
deadline on October 31st, when European Commissioners will be changed, meaning
that if the agreement is not signed by that date, the negotiations will have to restart
anew.
The social movements and CSOs in the region that have campaigned against the
FTAA want to make public and explain our opposition to this harmful agreement with
the EU. This proposed agreement jeopardises our sovereignty and our future and the
prospects to advance and make progress in a truly sustainable sub-regional
integration within the Mercosur area and with the European peoples and nations.
As we shall see, our governments in the MERCOSUR countries are ready to offer and
hand over key sectors of our national economies to uneven competition with big
European transnational corporations in sectors such as industrial goods, fisheries and
maritime transport, insurance, environmental services (including water and
sanitation), financial services and telecommunications, government procurement.
The agreement also proposes tougher rules on intellectual property rights (IPRs) that
will hinder the transfer of technologies and facilitate bio-piracy and an illegitimated
appropriation of knowledge associated with biodiversity use and additional legal
guarantees for European investors - all in exchange for alleged profits and benefits
for a few exporting agribusiness sectors in the Mercosur region.
We declare that this trade-off exercise is absolute unacceptable, as is also the total
lack of transparency with which these negotiations are being conducted. Therefore, we demand that MERCOSUR governments and negotiators:
– decline from signing this treaty with the European Union
– immediately stop the negotiations
– undertake wide and participatory, popular and sectoral consultations and
binding referendums before re -initiating any negotiations
– ensure full involvement of national parliaments in all the stages of the new
negotiations, prior to the signature of any agreement
– conduct social and environmental impact assessments of liberalisation in the
region in the last decades
1. Market access in agriculture - the survival of family farming and peasant agriculture at stake
The MERCOSUR governments are playing all their cards to obtain market access in
Europe for some of the agricultural commodities and processed agricultural products
from our region (specifically meat, soya and etanol). But in order for that to happen,
market access must be mutually granted, which means that we will have to further
open our markets to subsidised agricultural imports from Europe (e.g cheese,
chocolates, liquid coffee), leading the vast majority of our peasants and family
farmers to bankruptcy and ruin.
One of the areas of greatest concern in this field of negotiations is the fate of the
dairy sector in Mercosur, where milk is considered being a sensitive product, thus
protected with a 27% tariff applied to European milk imports. Nevertheless, the
Mercosur’s exceptions list for acknowledged sensible products is not being applied to
the EU-Mercosur trade agreement. In the case of Brazil, peasant and family farmers
(small holders) account for 82% of the 1.8 million dairy farms and at least 80% of
milk production. If this FTA were to be signed according to the schedule before
November 1s t, the current applied tariff of 27% would be reduced to 0% over a
period of ten years (except for powder milk) with serious impacts on family farming,
because that would result in important tariff reductions (approximately 50% tariff
cuts). Increased imports, which are already abundant, would be catastrophic and
have a huge impact on national price levels and the livelihoods of millions of small
holders. Probably more than a million small farmers that currently produce
approximately 30 liters per day each would not qualify to the productivity levels
required to be able to compete with European milk producers and would go
bankrupt, loosing their livelihood, thereby becoming part of the mounting rural
exodus. Production of onions, garlic, grapes, peaches and other farm produce will
experienc e the same fate. All of these are grown in smallholdings.
In addition to what this agreement means in terms of prying open our own markets,
the fact that our governments are basing this alleged economic integration on
increased exports of agricultural commodities and processed agricultural products
implies giving priority to export agriculture both nationally and regionally, rather
than to peasant and family farming and the satisfaction of the dietary and other
needs of our population. Export agriculture benefits only a minimal fraction of the
farmers in the region (the biggest producers and landowners). In fact, the whole
agriculture and food processing chain in the region -from seeds to processed foods-
is already largely controlled by big transnational corporations, many of which are
European. This emphasis and priority granted to export agriculture threatens our
peoples’ food sovereignty, given that we run the risk -as is currently the case in
Argentina-that export (soy) production displaces the production of foodstuffs such
as milk for the domestic market, or as in Uruguay where tree plantations for export
are encroaching into good farmland, in both cases displacing small and medium sized
farmers that supply the domestic market. It also threatens our food sovereignty,
security and safety because export agriculture is to a great extent highly polluting of
the soil, water and air and is based on the principle of uniformity rather than on the
rich diversity of our peasant agriculture. These environmental and safety concerns
will be seriously aggravated in the region with the proliferation of GM crops for
export.
Furthermore, the negotiations of this agricultural chapter clearly reveal the extent to
which the European alleged market access offers are really a deceptive fraud. In the
beef sector, for example, the EU is in fact offering us less than we are already
exporting to Europe -that is, 116,000 tons while we are currently exporting 275,000
tons. As if this were not bad enough, the export quota they are offering us for beef is
not granted all at once but piecemeal throughout a 10-year period, for the four
countries of the Mercosur. In other words, even if our governments would give away
all of our domestic markets with the illusion that the EU would open their markets to
increased agricultural exports from the Mercosur in sectors where we have a
comparative advantage, the EU will still be protecting its own markets while our
governments negotiate everything away.
In the same vein, the EU maintains proposals for a system of progressive import
tariffs vis a vis increasing exports from the Mercosur region. Thus, the more we
export the higher the EU tariffs will be. Such a system will only benefit those who are
already exporting beef to Europe, given that they will increase their profit margins
without exporting more. In other words, there will be no additional market access for
new producers, and no difference in the amounts of beef exported under the terms
of this trade agreement.
Last but not least, the EU offers under negotiation include a set of conditionalities
which we consider to be absurd: on one hand, Mercosur is asked to secure higher
levels of IPR protection for products with specific geographical indications that apply
to wines, cheese, jam and others, leading possibly to ban the use of terms such as
parmesan cheese, rocquefort cheese, bologna sausage, champagne, etc., given that
this geographical indications have already been patented in Europe. On the other
hand, the EU is offering import quotas that it plans to grant piecemeal throughout a
ten year period and divided into two distinct phases, where the second phase would
be conditional to the results of the negotiations in the WTO.
2. Mercosur’s right to establish autonomous industrial policies threatened
MERCOSUR governments have agreed to open up to 90% our domestic markets for
industrial goods, while the EU is demanding that they be 100% open - the same
level to which they have agreed to open the EU market for industrial products from
Mercosur countries. This is an unfair equation, because if we analyse the item lines
which we trade with the EU, it becomes clear that Mercosur countries export primary
products, mineral resources and low priced manufactures while the bulk of its
imports from the EU are industrial goods. Proposed market access levels for
industrial products would further aggravate these imbalances.
The latest UNCTAD report warns about the fact that during the period stretching
from 1980 to 2003 the purchasing power of developing countries grew much less
than the strong increase in the volume of their exports. This results from the fact
that the prices they pay in the international market for the products they import
from developed countries, such as machinery and equipment, IT products and high
tech industrial products and high R&D value added products (such as medicines, for
example) grew much higher - more than 9% in 2003 alone - than the prices of
their own exports. What is worse, the terms of trade for example for Brazilian
exports of manufactured products such as shoes, textiles, and steel or aluminum
products, deteriorated despite the growth in export volumes of these products.
This trade agreement will further aggravate this worsening terms of trade for
MERCOSUR, resulting in unacceptable damage to the environment and over
exploitation of natural resources in our countries, permanently locking the region
into a role in the international division of labor as exporters of increasing amounts of
ever cheaper raw materials.
With regards to the automotive sector, the auto-parts industry in Mercosur has
denounced the serious blow it would receive if the proposed market access rules are
approved, given that many of the automobile plants established in the region are
European and the high likelihood that these plants would change their production
strategies to privilege their European suppliers and intra-firm trade. The elimination
of proposed restrictions will facilitate the circulation of products within the production
chains of the big transnational corporations.
3. This FTA transforms water, sanitation and our territorial seas into commodities
In the negotiations on services the stakes are to (further) open up our markets to
European service providers in sectors such as telecommunications, banks, insurance,
“cultural and education services”, “environmental services” (water, sanitation and
pollution control), postal services, construction and tourism services. Water is
critically important in this regard, most especially the fresh water reserves in the
Gauaraní Acuifer that all four Mercosur countries share. Even though it is not part of
what the EU is CURRENTLY requesting, there can be no doubt that big water TNCs (a
majority of which are European) will push for unrestricted access to the Guaraní
Acuifer once the initial agreement is signed, given that this agreement will be open
to renegotiation of further liberalisation commitments.
With regards to the negotiations on fisheries and coastal navigation, the EU is
pushing for a reduction of our territorial seas from current 200 nautic miles to barely
12 nautic miles; if this agreement were approved, European fishing fleets would be
able to consider everything they fish outside of that 12 mile limit as their private
property. This is nothing less than the first step towards the privatisation of the seas
of the world! As if this were not sufficient, Mercosur is offering European investors
the same treatment it gives to our own national investors and industries.
4. Mercosur offers preference to European providers in government
procurement
In the negotiations on government procurement, Mercosur is offering preferential
treatment to EU tenders vis a vis other countries and regions. This means that once
the agreement is signed, our governments at every level (national, provincial,
municipal and decentralised bodies) would have to give preference to European
suppliers in all public tenders beyond a certain amount of money. Obviously, there
are a number of areas in which European suppliers are more competitive than our
domestic industry, and they would then be allowed to compete for public
investments in infrastructure, potentially resulting in lost opportunities to generate
domestic employment.
5. This treaty is illegitimate and damaging for our peoples
It is a matter of the most serious concern that enormous pressure is being exerted
for the approval of this agreement by some agricultural sectors (and within
governments, for example in the Brazilian case, by the Ministry of Agriculture and
the Ministry of Development, Industry and Trade whose interests are prevailing)
when the Mercosur governments haven’t even had a chance to assess the EU
proposals globally. The EU says that assymetrical treatment in specific sectors such
as textiles will be maintained and is not up for discussion. We are very concerned
about the unbalanced nature of this negotiations and for the fact that our
governments are not addressing such imbalances, while they have strongly held this
tenet in the FTAA negotiations, not accepting to negotiate unless the differences in
economical, industrial and commercial development are taken well into account.
Whatever concessions are made in the context of this agreement will set a
precedent , and it will be very difficult not to grant the same preferences to other
partners in the context of other trade agreements and fora. This means that the very
generous offers that the Mercosur is making to the EU will have to be the starting
point for any other trade agreements were Mercosur countries are involved, most
importantly when the FTAA negotiations resume. There is no doubt that the US
government will restart the FTAA negotiations demanding that the Mercosur
countries be as generous with them as they have been with the EU.
In terms of the possibilities for a re-launch of a MERCOSUR that can be a viable
instrument for the creation of an integrated economical and political community of
nations in South America, the terms of the agreement that is currently being
negotiated with the EU are unacceptable.
If our diplomats were successful in halting the FTAA negotiations because it does not
meet the requirements and hopes for an autonomous, sustainable development
project, why are they now allowing this agreement with the EU to proceed? This
agreement threatens important sectors of peasant and family agriculture in the
region, of our domestic industry and services, and the jobs of millions of citizens in
the Mercosur countries. Who wants to give up all this in exchange for nothing? This
agreement is just one more “free trade” agreement that will fill the pockets of the
European TNCs and a few agribusiness sectors in the Mercosur.
The approval and signature of this agreement would not only represent an
imposition on the incoming European Commission, but also on one of the members
States of the Mercosur that will be electing a new president and parliament on the
same day the governments had agreed as a deadline to sign this agreement
(October 31st, national elections in Uruguay). An agreement that has been stitched
up in such a haste would no doubt deceive the will of the people on both sides of the
Atlantic.
6. Conclusions
We don not understand why nor accept the reasons with which our governments and
the capitalist interests they protect are trying to justify such haste in celebrating so
called “free trade” agreements. The EU itself has given the world a lesson of patience
and moderation in taking no less than fifty years to construct an agreement amongst
the European nations, but now they want to impose on us a very comprehensive and
far reaching agreement in less than no time.
In order to address the threat of such a damaging agreement from being signed at
the cost of the vast majority of the people in our society, it is crucially important that
the social movements and CSOs that campaigned and mobilised against the FTAA
demonstrate our opposition and pressure our governments to:
– decline from signing this treaty with the European Union
– immediately stop the negotiations
– undertake wide and participatory, popular and sectoral consultations and
binding referendums before re -initiating any negotiations
– ensure full involvement of national parliaments in all the stages of the new
negotiations, prior to the signature of any agreement
– conduct social and environmental impact assessments of liberalisation in the
region in the last decades
Signatories
Americas:
Brasil
– Campanha Brasilera de Luta contra a ALCA
– Coordinación de Movimientos Sociales
– Associação Brasileira de ONGs
– CUT - Central Única dos Trabalhadores
– REBRIP - Rede Brasileira Pela Integração dos Povos
– Via Campesina Brasil (Movimento dos trabalhadores rurais sem terra- MST,
Movimento dos pequenos agricultores- MPA, Movimento das mulheres camponesas-
MMC, Movimento dos atingidos por barragens - MAB, Comissão pastoral da Terra-
CPT)
– FETRAFSUL
– CONTAG
– Jubileu Brasil,
– PACS,
– FBOM,
Argentina
– Autoconvocatoria No ALCA
– Barrios de Pié
Uruguay
– Campaña nacional por la soberanía y contra el ALCA
Paraguay
– Consulta Popular Paraguay
– MCNOC
Chile
– Alianza Chilena por un Comercio Justo y Responsable ACJR
Peru
– Alianza Social Continental - Capítulo Peruano
Colombia
– Recalca
Venezuela
– Alianza Social Continental - Capítulo Venezuela
– Fuerza Bolivariana de Trabajadores
– Unión Nacional de Trabajadores
Ecuador
– Ecuarunari - CONAIE
Bolivia
– Movimiento Boliviano de Lucha Contra el ALCA
Trinidad and Tobago
– Federation of Independent Trade Unions and NGOs (FITUN) of Trinidad and Tobago
Canada
– Polaris Institute
Europe
– ATTAC Germany
– FDCL - Centro de Investigación y Documentación Chile-América Latina Germany
– World, Economy, Ecology & Development (WEED), Germany
– Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO), The Netherlands
– One World Action-Central America, United Kingdom
– SOMO (Foundation of Research on Multinational Companies), The Netherlands
– Transnational Institute, The Netherlands
Asia
– YungChan Choi / Christian Park Korea
– All Together / Globalize from Below Korea
– Focus on the Global South Thailand
– South East Asian Council for Food Security and Fair Trade ( SEACON ) Malaysia
Redes Continental
– Alianza Social Continental
– Marcha Mundial das Mulheres
– ALOP
– Consumers Internacional,
– Oxfam Internacional
