the essential
Can the free trade agreement between the European Union and Mercosur be simply summed up in one line: “Argentinian and Brazilian meat for German cars and lithium for industrial Europe, but all that… to the detriment of French agriculture”? Responses from economist Charlotte Emlinger, from the Center for Prospective Studies and International Information (CEPII).
Is this agreement for the sole benefit of manufacturers?
Who says free trade agreement, says compromise. So there are sectors that win and lose. As cars are currently taxed at 35% upon entering Mercosur, this will indeed be a real gain for the European automobile industry. But she will not be the only winner. There will also be the agricultural sector. Also taxed between 20 and 35%, producers of French wines, spirits and cheeses could also benefit. We cannot therefore reduce this treaty to an agreement for the sole benefit of the manufacturing sector, to the detriment of agriculture, and especially since it protects the geographical indications of more than 350 products, which is not negligible for the France.
Adrien Thibault
What do the 99,000 t of beef which would see their customs duties reduced represent, compared to the consumption of beef in the European Union? And the threats, too, what does Brazilian chicken pose for producers?
The agreement between the EU and Mercosur reduces customs duties for these two sensitive products, whose producers have already been very hard hit and weakened by climatic events and animal diseases. This is why this text imposes quotas. 99,000 t of beef and 180,000 t of poultry, this represents approximately 1.2 or 1.3% of European consumption. So it's not much. However, in these fragile sectors, a small quantity can be destabilizing. But the main criticism is of course the difference in standards, production norms, between the Mercosur countries and the EU which represent unfair competition for our producers. However, it must be understood that the agreement does not at all reduce the standards for entry into the European Union. They remain the same. The problem is their control and the establishment of real, reliable traceability, which is very complex.
Also read:
MAP. Anger of farmers: gatherings, convoys… here is what is planned in the Occitanie region this Tuesday
What real commitments does this agreement propose to limit the heavy environmental and human impact it entails?
In terms of greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, the impact of transport is very limited, around 4%. The real problem is deforestation and farms that do not follow our social, environmental and food standards. But for lithium, for example, the real issue is that we need it independently of Mercosur, because in any case, we would buy it elsewhere and more expensively.
On the North American side, Donald Trump plans to increase customs duties on imports from 10 to 20%. The prospect of a double punishment for farmers?
It is interesting to draw the parallel because it is precisely the farmers benefiting from the agreement with Mercosur who would potentially be the most affected by Trump's policy, dairy products, wines and spirits…
Also read:
DECRYPTION. Anger of farmers: union war, Mercosur, new meetings… how long will the movement last?
Is refusing this agreement also a risk of sending the Mercosur countries back to the United States and China?
Quite. Today, in 2024, the issue is no longer just economic. In addition to access to essential raw materials like lithium, it is now also geostrategic. The United States has a very uncertain policy, China is taking up more and more space, with potential trade conflicts as a result… It is therefore important to have partners on the international scene.
Do South American countries still have the means to buy European products given their economic difficulties?
That's a very, very good question, and, indeed, we can ask it.
