MOTION FOR A RESOLUTION on trade negotiations between the EU and Mercosur
9.1.2013 - (2012/2924(RSP))
pursuant to Rule 115(5) of the Rules of Procedure
Helmut Scholz on behalf of the GUE/NGL Group
B7‑0018/2013
European Parliament resolution on trade negotiations between the EU and Mercosur
The European Parliament,
– having regard to the EU- Mercosur Association Agreement of 1995,
– having regard to its resolution of 21 October 2010 on the European Union’s trade relations with Latin America[1],
– having regard to the EUROLAT resolution of 19 May 2011 on the prospects for trade relations between the European Union and Latin America,
– having regard to its resolution of 8 March 2011 on EU agriculture and international trade[2],
– having regard to its previous resolutions on EU- Mercosur relations,
– having regard to the Joint Communiqué of the 14th Meeting of the EU-Brazil Joint Committee, June 2012,
– having regard to the question to the Commission on the state of play of trade negotiations with Mercosur (O-000218/2012 – B7‑0553/2012),
– having regard to Rules 115(5) and 110(2) of its Rules of Procedure,
A. whereas negotiations for an Association Agreement between the EU and four Mercosur countries were launched in 1999, stalled in 2004, and were officially relaunched at the EU-Mercosur summit in 2010;
B. whereas nine negotiation rounds have taken place since then; whereas, until now, rounds have focused on the normative part of the agreement; whereas no date has yet been set for the exchange of market access offers;
C. whereas Mercosur is facing important developments and changes with the admission of Venezuela as a member state, the ongoing temporary suspension of Paraguay after the coup in June 2012, and the strengthening of the relationship with Bolivia and Ecuador as possible future full member states of Mercosur aimed at establishing an enlarged Mercosur integration zone;
D. whereas the process of integration of the Latin American region has been further developed and deepened with the creation of the intra-continental integration structures UNASUR, CELAC and ALBA as the main institutions, as well as with the establishment of the Bank of the South and several other initiatives introducing new steps towards integration, for example in the field of energy cooperation, raw materials, customs, and direct elections to the Parlasur;
E. whereas the EU and Brazil as well as other Mercosur member states reaffirmed their strong commitment to achieving an ambitious, balanced and comprehensive Association Agreement, emphasised the central importance of the WTO and the multilateral trade system to global prosperity, and concurred on the importance of working together for the good functioning and strengthening of the system;
F. whereas in December 2012, the EU , the US and Japan, took action against Argentina at WTO level requesting the establishment of a panel of the Dispute Settlement Body concerning measures taken by Argentina affecting the importation of goods;
G. whereas Argentina requested the establishment of a panel against the EU at WTO level, concerning the restriction on the import of biodiesel;
H. whereas Argentina experienced a very deep economic crisis leading to state bankruptcy as a consequence of policies of liberalisation and deregulation imposed by the IMF, but finally solved its debt problem, distancing itself from the recommendations of the IMF and the EU;
I. whereas many European companies have taken advantage of the liberalisation of Argentina; whereas Argentina, without imposing austerity on its people and using several sui generis non-orthodox economic solutions, has generated growth averaging 7% in the last 10 years; whereas Argentina is trying to restore its control over the energy sector by renationalising the traditional company YPF;
J. whereas the EU is facing the deepest economic crisis of its history, trying to resolve its debt problem by imposing austerity on its peoples; whereas the world is facing multiple crises (environmental, food, economic, etc.) that have not been resolved properly so far; whereas the trade negotiations, depending on their contents, can have positive or negative effects on resolving those crises;
K. whereas the EU has outsourced to Mercosur countries a considerable amount of protein production for animal feed, and is further outsourcing energy crop production, with a very negative impact on biodiversity, forests, water, climate change, food security, land use and property, violence and social conflict, flight from the land and the growth of slums in big city areas;
L. whereas Brazil’s policy on intellectual property rights takes into account new challenges, in particular concerning generic medicines, with a positive effect on disease prevention and healing;
M. whereas impact assessments (IAs) and sustainability impact assessments (SIAs) concerning a possible EU- Mercosur trade agreement, delivered in 2011, have revealed no significant economic welfare gain for the EU, and potentially significant adverse impacts on global biodiversity and climate change;
1. Considers that Mercosur is an important trade partner, but that any trade negotiations must have as their priorities sustainable development, job creation, social justice, the environment, and cultural diversity in both regions; therefore calls on the Commission not to stick to its classical model of FTA but to conceive new forms of trade agreements adapted to the needs of its relations with specific partners;
2. Notes the commitment of the EU and Brazil and other Mercosur member states to the successful outcome of the WTO’s Doha Development Round and their willingness to keep working on an ambitious, comprehensive and balanced conclusion of the Round;
3. Urges the Commission to review its negotiating patterns in order to ensure that the results of the negotiation do not undermine but reinforce the fight against tax evasion and avoidance, as well as money laundering;
4. Calls on the Commission to propose to the Council an adaptation of the current negotiation directives in line with the new challenges that the EU and the Mercosur region are facing;
5. Calls on the Commission to support the process of integration of Latin America and to refrain from any initiative that could lead to the splitting up of the Mercosur bloc;
6. Welcomes the joint democratic reaction of the Mercosur and UNASUR countries to the interruption of the process of democratisation in Paraguay after three decades of dictatorship; asks the Commission to fully respect and support this decision and to abstain from any recognition of the de facto government of Paraguay;
7. Considers that in its relations with Argentina the Commission must take into account the crisis that this country has faced, and the negative influence of international players in it; considers that measures adopted by Argentina during the last 10 years show that to get out of an economic and financial crisis there are alternatives to the austerity and suffering imposed on its peoples that the international financial institutions are recommending;
8. Calls on the Commission to respect the process of nationalisation of the energy sector by Argentina – similar to those processes carried out by European countries some years ago – and not to take action against Argentina on this matter;
9. Recognises the right of Argentina to adopt measures to protect its level of industrialisation;
10. Calls on the Commission to support the efforts of Brazil, among others concerning intellectual property rights and the production and commercialisation of generic medicines, and to adopt similar provisions in future trade agreements;
11. Urges the Commission to establish effective mechanisms of consultation with both sides of civil society at all stages of the negotiations;
12. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the EEAS, the governments of the Member States, the governments and parliaments of the Mercosur countries and the Parliament of Mercosur (Parlasur).