Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2010-07-08-Speech-4-082"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20100708.4.4-082"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spoken text |
"Mr President, as this is a joint debate and with the agreement of the Chair, I would like to address both the agricultural implications of an association agreement with Mercosur and the forthcoming Summit at the beginning of the session. I am thus happy to respond in any format decided by the Chair.
As regards your specific questions, the Commission is working on the basis of the negotiating directives adopted by the Council back in 1999. These directives task the Commission with negotiating a balanced and comprehensive agreement with Mercosur, with the aim of liberalising substantially all trades in line with the EU’s commitments at the WTO. This applies to all areas to be covered by the agreement, including agriculture.
The Commission is very well aware of the sensitivity of agriculture in these negotiations and will take this element into account when negotiating with Mercosur. Let us also keep in mind that we have substantial offensive agriculture interests in Mercosur as well, such as wine, cheese, fruit and vegetables and geographical indications. In this context, we are aware that accompanying measures might become necessary for the most sensitive sectors. It is, however, way too early to discuss what these measures could cover. We are only just starting the negotiations and have not yet entered into discussions on substance.
We have not put down agricultural offers at this moment in time and there was a question – I do not know by whom – about the position of the Agriculture Commissioner in this respect. It is not the Trade Commissioner who decides what agricultural offers will be put on the table. This has to be agreed between the Agriculture Commissioner and myself, and if we do not agree then it goes to the College of Commissioners and it is the College of Commissioners which takes the decision. That is the way it happens, so Mr Dacian Cioloş is fully included in these discussions.
We also know that we will have to take into account previous agricultural offers made by the EU in the Doha Round, of which Mercosur is expected to be one of the main beneficiaries. In this context, let me clarify that relaunching the negotiations with Mercosur does not undermine in any way our commitment to a successful conclusion of the DDA. As a matter of principle, we only negotiate FTAs which are compatible with WTO rules and which, building on the WTO
go much further in coverage than the Doha Round. I believe that if we make the right choices it is possible to successfully conclude both negotiations.
As regards food safety, it goes without saying that imports have to fully respect EU food safety requirements. Let it be very clear that there is no intention to negotiate away our health and safety requirements; not with Mercosur or anyone else! The EU approach in all trade negotiations is certainly not to decrease the EU level of protection. The WTO rules give us the right to establish our own level of protection provided that this is based on recognised scientific evidence – this is an inviolable right.
Finally, as regards the impact of a possible agreement, a sustainable impact assessment of a trade agreement between the EU and Mercosur has already been carried out and has been publicly available since March 2009. In addition, the Commission will complete this impact assessment with a more focused economic study in the months to come.
Now let me turn to the EU-Brazil Summit and start with a short overview of our relations. Brazil has uncontested international stature in line with the size of its territory, its population and its economic performance. It supports multilateralism, is a member of the G20 and is a key player in global debates on climate change, economic governance, the reform of the UN, trade issues and the eradication of poverty. Moreover, Brazil often acts as an informal bridge between Western and emerging and developing countries. Brazil is one of nine countries with which the EU has entered into a strategic partnership. The partnership dates back to 2007 and the joint action plan, which translates the partnership into concrete actions, to 2008.
The multiplicity of joint initiatives, the level of mutual understanding and the deepening of the relationship, which includes 18 ongoing dialogues, bear witness to our satisfaction with the implementation of the joint action plan. This will be the fourth EU-Brazil Summit at which we will aim to take stock of progress in our relations and discuss the main global challenges. The moment for such an assessment is particularly appropriate as President Lula’s term in office approaches its end.
As regards environmental issues, at the third summit in Stockholm we planned cooperation in view of last December’s Copenhagen Summit and a bioenergy initiative involving Brazil, the EU and the African Union. The forthcoming Cancún and Nagoya conferences on climate change and biodiversity are high on the agenda of the Summit, as enhanced coordination with Brazil is crucial to a successful outcome.
Further to a suggestion by President Lula at the EU-Mercosur Summit in Madrid, we are looking into a common position with Brazil for Cancún. The African Union Commission has received our joint proposal on trilateral cooperation on bioenergy and we hope to hear from them soon.
Starting with Mercosur, the relaunching of negotiations for an association agreement with Mercosur is of utmost importance for the EU, both politically and economically. Politically, Mercosur is the largest regional integration project in Latin America, which makes it superfluous to insist on the geopolitical importance of strengthening our ties with the continent. We have agreements in place with Chile and Mexico, and recently finalised negotiations with Colombia, Peru and Central America, so it is only logical to engage with Mercosur as well.
In terms of cooperation in multilateral fora, we are pursuing coordination ahead of the Seoul G20 Summit to gather Brazil’s support to obtain adequate representation of the EU in the UN system and to purposefully engage towards a conclusion of the Doha Round. Brazil is seeking to reinforce its influence with the global governance system and needs our support for a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council. As an advanced emerging economy, it takes a very different stand to the EU in relation to reform of the World Bank and the IMF.
Overall, what is certainly clear is that we have a shared agenda as globally relevant partners and we have to find ways to sort out our differences and seek convergence. At the Summit we will confirm our commitment to strengthening non-proliferation and encourage closer cooperation. Brazil opposed the Iran sanctions adopted last June by the UN Security Council. However, the EU welcomed the efforts made by Brazil and Turkey that led to the Tehran Declaration, pointing out its shortcomings but also emphasising its value as a potential confidence-building instrument and inviting Iran to seize the chance to resume serious negotiations. Although we diverge tactically, we find common ground on the principles enshrined in the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the need for Iran to demonstrate the peaceful nature of its nuclear programme.
I have dealt extensively with the negotiations with Mercosur in the first part of my address, but these will of course be raised in the Summit discussions. Unfortunately, I will not be in Brasilia, but given that we have only met recently to have the first technical talks after a long pause the Summit is unlikely to take firm decisions in relation to this negotiation. The Summit will also address regional issues: Cuba, Honduras, Paraguay and Venezuela. Brazil’s role in helping to stabilise Paraguay, its refusal to recognise the new Honduran Government, its engagement with Cuba and Venezuela are all on the agenda.
Lastly, tough work is still being finalised on some issues where we expect the Summit to deliver. First, the signature of a horizontal civil aviation agreement and an air safety agreement. Second, the announcement of a joint work programme on triangular cooperation with developing countries. Third, a letter of intent between the Commission and the Brazilian National Council of Justice to advance trilateral cooperation in electoral support and justice reform will be signed in Brussels on 14 July.
Our relationship with Brazil does not end with the Summit; we have other initiatives in parallel that help to give a fuller dimension to our bilateral, regional and global engagements, but I have more than exhausted my speaking time. I will try to give additional examples in response to your questions.
In economic terms, a successful agreement could bring considerable benefits to both the EU and Mercosur. In these difficult economic times, we cannot afford to overlook the potential of this agreement for our two regions in terms of jobs and growth.
Mercosur is a large and dynamic economic entity with a combined GDP of EUR 1 300 billion and with GDP growth rates expected to reach around 5% in 2010 and 4% in 2011. It is an increasingly important partner for the EU. In terms of EU exports, it ranks on a par with India and ahead of countries such as Canada or Korea. Over the past four years until the crisis hit, EU exports to Mercosur increased by more than 15% annually.
In terms of foreign direct investments, Mercosur is also a key partner. EU investments in Mercosur amount to more than EUR 165 billion – more than EU investments in China, India and Russia together. Given its size and potential, and also the fact that Mercosur is still a relatively protected market, the economic gains for EU business could be among the most important of the free trade agreements recently concluded or currently being negotiated by the EU with major trade partners such as Korea or India.
Relaunching these negotiations is also a sign of the commitment of both regions to continuing to promote free trade and to reject protectionism. The Commission has taken this decision after a thorough examination and in-depth internal debate. In reaching this decision, the Commission positively valued the indications given by Mercosur, during the informal dialogue at technical level, on issues like trade in goods, public procurement or some services sectors.
Let me add that immediately after the College had taken the decision I came to the INTA Committee and we discussed in depth the relaunching of the negotiations. I could even add that the Council is of the opinion that I treated the European Parliament much better than I treated them, so they were not pleased at all. We did this is on the basis of the mandate that we have, so we did not need a new mandate. This was a proper decision of the College, and Parliament was extensively informed immediately afterwards.
However, it must be very clear that the forthcoming attitude of our Mercosur partners surely allows negotiations to be relaunched, but is of course no guarantee of a successful conclusion. That is something quite different. In order to conclude, we will need to negotiate an ambitious agreement, notably in sectors such as trade in goods and services, or intellectual property, including geographical indications.
The first meeting with Mercosur took place last week in Buenos Aires. It was a rather technical round to touch base after more than five years of suspension, identifying where the negotiations had left off in 2004, on process issues and modalities for the negotiations going forward. We will of course keep the European Parliament and the Council fully informed about the evolution of the negotiations."@en1
|
| lpv:unclassifiedMetadata | |
| lpv:videoURI |
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples