Proposition 54K3088

Projet de loi portant assentiment au Protocole d'adhésion à l'Accord commercial entre l'Union européenne et ses états membres, d'une part, et la Colombie et le Pérou, d'autre part, en vue de tenir compte de l'adhésion de l'Equateur, fait à Bruxelles le 11 novembre 2016.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

May 8, 2018

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

Colombia Ecuador European Union Peru international agreement

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

CD&V LE Open Vld N-VA MR

Voted to reject

Groen Vooruit Ecolo PS | SP DéFI PVDA | PTB

Abstained from voting

∉ PP VB

Party dissidents ¶

• Olivier Maingain (MR) voted to reject.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 18, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

The rapporteur is Mr Vincent Van Peteghem. He refers to his written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Minister, dear colleagues, ratifying a trade agreement can be a good thing, but we still need to know what kind of agreement it is. The trade agreement in question must guarantee a balanced and equitable development for all parties, a development that respects the rules of trade, but also guarantee respect for human rights, social and environmental standards.

We did not have the opportunity to have a huge number of hearings on these texts within the framework of the Federal Parliament; nevertheless long hearings were held in the Parliament of Wallonia. Let me, therefore, return to some of the elements that have been outlined there.

The hearings in the Wallonia Parliament highlighted several elements. First, that the trade agreement between the European Union, Colombia and Peru, which is now extended to Ecuador, would strengthen the rights of large corporations, that this type of agreement was also a barrier to the extension of guarantees that ensure, in a certain way, respect for human rights and that this would also reduce the sovereignty of the Ecuadorian State in its ability to manage its own public policies. Second, the sectors that will benefit from the agreement are ultimately very limited. These include the sector of industrial agriculture, the sector of the production of shrimp, bananas or even flowers. These are sectors that are challenged, in particular for their disastrous impact on the environment, but also in terms of human rights, in particular workers’ rights.

The hearings also highlighted that food imports from Europe, which will necessarily increase thanks to this agreement, will destroy local production SMEs, which are, however, the ones that create the largest number of jobs in the rural areas concerned and provide the majority of the food of Ecuadorians.

The hearings also highlighted that this would strengthen a situation of unfair competition between the European Union and Ecuador, that the most exported products are milk, its derivatives, vegetables, cereals and grains as well as meat products; products that are themselves processed in Ecuador, by the peasant economy.

The question of social and trade union rights is also raised. The rate of syndicalism, so low in the Ecuadorian banana sector, is precisely linked to the repression and persecution of workers.

The conditions for these hearings were therefore as follows: the risk that this trade agreement strengthens a primary export model, which will prevent the consolidation of better working conditions, based on an industrial and service economy. Especially because there is no mandatory monitoring mechanism.

For these reasons, which have been widely debated in the committee, my group will oppose this text.

Mr. Speaker, we can hear the arguments of Mrs. Grovonius and respect the debates of the Walloon Parliament, but our group really supports this bill, also for historical reasons, recalled by Mr. Minister in commission.

Colombia has gone through decades of war. There was the period of the Violencia between landowners, the fight against drug traffickers, the war against the FARC, etc. At a time when our Assembly is to consider a proposal for a text aimed at establishing an agreement with these countries that allows the peoples to develop their activities and finally move towards a peaceful society, we must not hesitate to support this bill. This is what our group does.

I will not return to the debate we have had in the committee. I will only remind you that this is the protocol of accession of Ecuador to this agreement with Colombia and Peru. With regard to Ecuador, this is a clear commitment to respect and implement the multilateral international agreements on the environment, in the field of sustainable development. Ecuador has also ratified the eight fundamental ILO conventions. When it comes to environment and work, Ecuador tries to go this way.

I will add that we have just had meetings in recent days, bringing together the European Union and CELAC, that is, Latin America, Central America and the Caribbean. All of these partners express a major wish, namely that these different agreements are being advanced. As I pointed out, we are progressing in Belgium, as in other countries. This expectation is very strong in Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and other countries, as well as in the Mercosur countries, which are still in negotiation.

Finally, I obviously never intervene in the debates that take place within the federal entities, but, to my knowledge, after very many hearings and a very broad debate in the Parliament of Wallonia, this Parliament has decided, in full autonomy, to ratify this agreement as well.

Mr. Minister, thank you for the elements of reply and thank you to Mr. Miller for his speeches. We always return to the same thing. These agreements do not contain a monitoring or monitoring mechanism or a mechanism of sanctions in the event that these social, environmental and labour rights are not respected. In this case, we have no certainty that these agreements will actually improve the situation on the ground.

You pointed out to us that many are those who, on the ground, demand the conclusion of these agreements in the countries concerned. I think we all, here or in the Wallonia Parliament, have heard of representatives of Colombian, Peruvian or Ecuadorian civil society who have expressed the greatest fears and the greatest criticism about these agreements. Unfortunately, it is again observed that it is primarily and above all the interests of large groups and large industries that are privileged, at the expense of the demands of civil society.