Trade policy is one of the most powerful areas of responsibility of the EU Commission – and one of the most controversial: The Brussels authority negotiates agreements with other countries on behalf of the 27 member states that reduce customs duties and export bureaucracy. This gives Europe’s industry better access to other markets and consumers more choice and lower prices. However, critics warn that more free trade can also damage the environment and climate or disadvantaged groups such as indigenous people. The Commission is trying to address these concerns, but in an inadequate and misleading way, authors of a comprehensive study are now complaining.
For example, the authority has experts carry out so-called sustainability impact assessments for planned trade agreements. These studies contrast forecasts of the economic benefits of an agreement with forecasts of the environmental and social risks. The results should then influence the negotiations on the agreements. The environmental group Greenpeace Germany and the Parisian think tank Institut Veblen have now analyzed all 31 impact assessments that have been published by the Commission so far. And the duo draws a disastrous conclusion: The investigations are therefore “incorrect” and merely served “as a fig leaf for ecologically, socially and economically harmful trade agreements”.
The report by Greenpeace and Institut Veblen will be presented this Wednesday, it is available to the SZ in advance. One of the criticisms of the study is that the impact assessments are often not published at the start of the negotiations, but only two to four years later.
In the case of the controversial trade agreement with the South American economic bloc Mercosur, the Commission only published the investigation after the conclusion of the talks – a delay that the EU ombudswoman Emily O’Reilly had previously pointed out criticized Has. The European Court of Auditors had also warned earlier that such delays should be stopped.
“Superficial and speculative” are the forecasts
In addition, the Greenpeace report accuses the commission that the impact assessments often suffer from an “ideological pro-free trade bias, flawed methodology and insufficient serious public participation”. For example, when assessing the climate impact, the Commission’s studies ignore the fact that more trade leads to more carbon dioxide emissions from cargo ships. The impact of deforestation on the greenhouse effect also plays no role. In addition, the forecasts on species protection and human rights are often “superficial and speculative”.
The dispute over the sense and nonsense of trade agreements could soon intensify. The Commission is expected to finalize negotiations with Chile, New Zealand and Australia this year or next year at the latest. In addition, the ratification of the agreement that the agency has negotiated with Mexico could begin. The Commission continues to try to salvage the Mercosur trade deal, which many EU governments are reluctant to sign at the moment due to climate concerns.