: Mrs. Cavazzini, you voted for the EU Parliament to refer the European Court of Justice (ECJ) over the trade agreement with four states of the South American Mercosur group. Therefore the Parliament will not ratify the treaty for the time being, with which Europeans have been negotiating with the South Americans for more than 25 years. Have you thereby caused the EU to appear unreliable and quarrelsome in its role as a partner?
Anna Cavazzini: The European Parliament has indeed decided on Wednesday that the ECJ should review the agreement. This is a normal procedure that is also triggered for other agreements. It is important to take the necessary time to ensure that all rule-of-law procedures are observed and that the agreement is in line with the EU treaties. When this is confirmed, it will ultimately increase the acceptance of the agreement. It has received a majority from all groups. This shows that the legal concerns are not unfounded.
: What is the most important reason you invoked the ECJ?
Cavazzini: For me, the gravest issue is that there is a new compensation mechanism in this agreement: If, due to European environmental legislation, for example, Brazil exports less to the European Union, it can sue for damages or for compensation. This could pose a threat to the EU’s autonomous legislative capacity.
In the Interview: Anna Cavazzini
The 43-year-old is the trade-policy spokesperson for Bündnis 90/Die Grünen in the EU Parliament and the chair of the Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection. Her constituencies are Saxony and Saxony-Anhalt.
: This compensation clause is formulated rather softly. It mainly provides for mediation. If nothing helps, the defendant party can be asked to offer temporary compensation. Is it really worthwhile to risk the EU’s geostrategic position for such a gentle rule?
Cavazzini: I do not believe that the EU’s strategic position will be endangered by us adhering to a procedure for reviewing the rule of law. This is especially true in times when the rule of law is under attack everywhere. The European Commission will provisionally implement the agreement. So there is no delay in entering into force. Only the ratification by the European Parliament will be delayed. And to the content again: The compensation clause can have a strong chilling effect. That means: If one side fears problems with the other trading partner, it will refrain from enacting this or that law in the first place. This is potentially dangerous, particularly from an environmental policy perspective.
If one side fears problems with the other trading partner, it will refrain from enacting this or that law in the first place
Anna Cavazzini, Bündnis 90/Die Grünen
: Trump and Putin want to split the EU. That is exactly what is happening here. Are you playing into Trump and Putin’s hands?
Cavazzini: The agreement is simply very controversial, not only since the vote on Wednesday. It barely passed the Council because very large, important member states like Poland or France view it critically across party lines. This is also reflected in the European Parliament. The supporters and especially Commission President Ursula von der Leyen must understand that geopolitical success also entails political costs for cohesion within the EU.
: The fear that trade agreements could prevent EU environmental laws was raised before, for example with Ceta with Canada. Have those concerns proven true there?
Cavazzini: It happens again and again that trade rules have a massive influence on national legislation. One example is the now-defunct Energy Charter Treaty. Because we, as Greens, as environmental and climate movement, mobilized against it, the EU withdrew. It was an international investment-protection treaty that protected fossil investments.
: With Ceta, the EU is still involved. Did those concerns materialize there?
Cavazzini: With Ceta, this arbitration mechanism is not yet in force because not all member states have ratified it.
: Today the situation is different from when Ceta was negotiated. At the latest since Trump threatened the annexation of Greenland, it is clear that the EU must become stronger to be able to assert itself even in competition with the USA. Could the Mercosur agreement contribute to that. Are the concerns about the compensation clause really decisive?
Cavazzini: In this situation it would help if the EU member states did not simply cower before Trump, but as the European Union threatened countermeasures against his arbitrary tariffs. The fact that Trump withdrew the tariff threat on February 1 must also be linked to the growing pressure in the EU to trigger the anti-coercion instrument against the USA. It is absolutely important to collaborate with democratic partners and also to diversify more. Nevertheless, one must view the Mercosur agreement realistically: it cannot compensate for what is lost in trade with the USA. And one must ensure that the content is correct and that you do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
: You criticize not only the compensation clause but also the drawbacks that this agreement could pose for farmers in the EU. Now model calculations from the federal Thünen Institute of Agricultural Research show that the agreement would hardly burden agriculture, because import volumes of beef would remain strongly limited. Are the damages not as large as feared?
Cavazzini: It is true, there will not be a beef glut. But these additional 99,000 tons of beef annually hit an already stressed, oversaturated market. And from a sustainability perspective, one must ask: How meaningful is it to ship beef around the globe when farmers in this region produce beef and climate change is progressing? For me, the biggest critique of the agreement, however, is its impact on climate and the rainforest in the Mercosur states. Various studies show that the European Union, through its consumption, accounts for 6 to 10 percent of global deforestation. The agreement adds further pressure.
: The Thünen researchers have forecast that the Mercosur states will produce only around 1 percent more beef because of the agreement. Is the danger that the rainforest will disappear on a relevant scale to accommodate more cattle farming?
Cavazzini: The Amazon is on the brink of a tipping point. Every additional square kilometer of deforestation already poses a problem there. I regularly exchange with Indigenous peoples there. I have met individual tribes and the umbrella organization of Brazilian Indigenous peoples. They are against the agreement because they fear their habitat will come under further pressure. Such voices must be taken very, very seriously.
: How do you feel about the EU Commission being able to bring most of the agreement into force now, even without Parliament’s consent?
Cavazzini: I find that legitimate. We are normally as Parliament always careful that we ratify with the Council or that agreements are not provisionally applied as long as we have not ratified. But in this special situation, it is a compromise that makes geopolitical sense. We will vote as soon as the ECJ publishes its opinion. Then everyone can make an informed decision. Resolving legal concerns can also dispel some criticism of the agreement. If the agreement is already provisionally in force, we will already have early insights into how it works in practice.
