Committee on International Trade Ordinary meeting Joint committee procedure - AFET and INTA Committee on Foreign Affairs
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
Offset
Transcript offset
Export
Live capture
Versions of this video
Transcripts may differ slightly from one version to another.
INTA European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 10
They can use the headphones. So, good morning. Welcome to this joint voting session of the AFET and INTA committees. Our topic is the Mexico Modernised Global Agreement.
I hope now technical conditions are good also. And thank you very much for cooperating since some of the colleagues are in a hurry and some of the colleagues will arrive in the few, in the following two or three minutes. I have to start by adoption of the agenda. And if there are no objections, I propose to adopt the agenda without changes as it was sent to you. I don't see any remarks, so I go directly to the second point, which is chair's announcements.
I don't see any remarks so I go directly to the second point which is chair's announcements and I have to welcome warmly the ambassador of Mexico to the European Union who is in this room. Rogelio Granguillhome, as many of you know the ambassador's assignment in Brussels will come to an end in this month. On behalf of our AFET and INTA committees I would like to thank you wholeheartedly for the excellent cooperation over the five years ambassador and your commitment to the modernization of the EU-Mexico Global Agreement.
And I think today, after our vote, you will be able to say mission accomplished. I wish you on behalf of our two committees all the best for the future endeavors. Point three, adoption of minutes.
Draft minutes of the meeting of 15th of April 2026 will be deemed approved unless there are objections which you can raise until the end of this meeting. Point number four, and this is the main point of our meeting. Conclusion on behalf of the European Union of the political, economic and cooperation strategic partnership agreement between the European Union and its member states on the one part and the United Mexican States on the other part. It is a consent vote and also the accompanying interim report. We have two co-rapporteurs, Javi López from AFET and Borja Jiménez Laras for INTA.
Council submitted his request to Parliament on 28th of May. We will be required to give our consent before the agreement enters into force.
AFET and INTA have anticipated most of the work and therefore we can vote now on our recommendation to the plenary today. It is very swift for us and this is very good for the Parliament and also for the agreement. Before proceeding the vote, I will briefly pass the floor to the AFET Vice-Chair, Hana Jalloul Muro, for her introductory remarks. So please, you have the floor.
Hana Jalloul Muro
Thank you very much, Chair. Indeed, I would like to say again to the Ambassador Rogelio that I just saw he came a little bit late, but the Chair was praising your job for the last five years you spent with us. Thank you for your commitment, indeed, Ambassador.
Thanks a lot. And now, beyond its very important trade provisions, this agreement is above all a renewal of our strategic partnership with Mexico, 25 years after the original Global Agreement entered into force. It substantially upgrades our political and cooperation framework, deepening dialogue on shared priorities, including human rights, democracy, the rule of law, and the fight against corruption.
It also strengthens the cooperation on human mobility challenges and the fight against transnational organized crime, areas where our two sides have a clear mutual interest in working more closely together. Importantly, the agreement embeds solid, enforceable commitments on labor rights, environmental standards, a reflection of this house's long-standing insistence that our external partnership must reflect our values, not only our economic interests. I look forward to the European Parliament's consent and the swift ratification by all 27 member states. We need to match our geopolitical ambitions with facts and support what is not a simple technical arrangement, but rather a comprehensive political framework to shape our relations with one of the EU's strategic partners and Latin America's most influential economies.
Thank you very much.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, and we can now start the vote, but before this we have to do a test vote. So, I don't know, who is happy that it is a warm weather in Brussels today? I open the vote. Has everybody voted? I close the vote.
Yes, many of the colleagues are happy, a majority. So now, so now we can, we can proceed according to the voting list and we have amendment number one. Who is in favor? Who is against? I'm coached here that I forgot to mention something for the, for the minutes.
So we are now voting on the draft consent recommendation, which proposes to give consent to the recommendation.
Now I hope minutes are okay. Thank you. And once again please, once again please, amendment number one by show of hands, who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains?
Thank you, it is rejected. And now we have a roll call vote on the draft recommendation as amended and I open the vote. Has everybody voted? I close the vote.
So we have 67 votes in favor, the motion is adopted, 15 votes against and three abstentions. Thank you very much and congratulations to the rapporteur. There is a request for the floor, please.
Lynn Boylan
Thank you, Chair, and I will be brief. Just that we would like to submit a minority report because the European Commission, who argues that this trade agreement will help Europe respond to geopolitical instability and economic uncertainty, but we believe the deal agreed will not deliver the benefits that it claims. And it gives corporations the right to sue states before international tribunals and claim millions of euros when governments regulate in the public interest, while granting no equivalent enforceable rights to workers, communities, or the environment. And this exposes a glaring contradiction with Europe's exit from the Energy Charter Treaty to protect itself from such lawsuits and the ability to regulate. The agreement also appears to run counter to efforts to reindustrialize Europe.
It facilitates the relocation of industries, particularly the automotive production, to Mexico and puts workers in Europe and Mexico into competition instead of supporting decent jobs, deepening a race to the bottom in labor conditions. And it significantly restricts the government's policy space while promoting a harmful extractivist model, incentivizing agri-food exports instead of supporting agricultural sovereignty in both Mexico and Europe. And I think the Commission's own evaluation of the existing agreement with Mexico found that after nearly 20 years, its impact was marginal for both parties, even by the narrow measure of GDP, and therefore there is little basis to expect that this revised deal will deliver the promised economic benefits. So we do support a stronger EU-Mexico relationship and closer cooperation, but on different terms.
Speaker 10
Uh, thank you very much. You will of course submit your position in a written statement.
Thank you very much. It's noted and we can turn now to point 10 of our agenda, the interim report in view of the consent procedure on the political, economic and cooperation strategic partnership agreement between the EU and Mexico. And we are starting now the second vote. And we had a total of 317 amendments tabled to the draft interim report. Co-rapporteurs have been agreed on 21 compromise amendments with the shadow rapporteurs.
Thank you for the work of all of them and let's start the vote. First compromise amendment number one.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Thank you, adopted. We go directly to compromise amendment number two.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise amendment number three.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise number four.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number five.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. Compromise number six.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment number 214.
No, sorry, sorry, excuse me, compromise amendment number seven. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
And now we arrive to compromise 214. Who is in favor? Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected.
Compromise amendment number eight. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Now amendment 223. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted. Rejected.
Rejected. Amendment 2025, 225. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions. Rejected. 230. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions. Rejected. 231. In favor.
Against. Abstentions. Rejected. Compromise amendment number nine. In favor.
Against. Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 237. Who is in favor?
Against. Abstentions. Rejected.
Compromise amendment number 10, in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise 11, in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise 12, in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise 13, in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. Now amendment 263, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Rejected.
264, in favor? Against? Abstentions? I would like to check this please, amendment 264, open the vote. I close the vote.
And it is clearly rejected. Next compromise number 14, in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise 15, in favor. Against. Abstentions adopted. Compromise 16, in favor. Against.
Abstentions adopted. Amendment number 294. Who is in favor? Against. Abstentions rejected.
296, in favor. Against. Abstentions rejected. 298, in favor. Against.
299 in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected. 304 in favor?
Abstentions rejected.
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. 305 in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Rejected. Compromise 17 in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. And amendment 310 in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected.
312 in favor. Against. Abstentions rejected. We arrive to 313 in favor. Against.
Abstentions rejected. 314 in favor. Against. Abstentions rejected. 315.
315 in favor. Against. Abstentions rejected.
316 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. 317 in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment number, citation amendment one, citation number three in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment number two in favor, against, abstentions, rejected. Amendment number three in favor, against, abstentions, rejected.
Amendment number five. In favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Number six. In favor? Against? Abstentions? I would like to check this please, amendment number six.
I open the vote. And I close the vote. And it is rejected. Amendment number seven. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment number eight, in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment ten, in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Rejected. Amendment eleven, in favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected.
Amendment twelve, in favor. Against. Abstentions, rejected. Now we arrive to compromise amendment eighteen. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment, no, compromise amendment number nineteen. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment number fifty-eight. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Fifty-nine in favor? Rejected.
I'm sorry, I'm sorry colleagues, rejected. Amendment fifty-nine. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Rejected. Amendment 60, 6-0. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions rejected. 61 in favor? Against? Abstentions rejected.
We have amendment 62 which is withdrawn, so we go to amendment 63. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions rejected. 64 in favor?
Against? Abstentions rejected. 65 in favor? Against? Abstentions rejected.
66 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected. 67 in favor.
Against. Abstentions. Rejected. Compromise amendment 20 in favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 75, 7-5, in favor. Against. Abstentions.
Rejected. 76 in favor. Against. Abstentions. Rejected.
Compromise amendment 21 in favor. Against? Abstentions? Adopted. We arrive to the final vote, which is a roll-call vote on the draft report as amended.
I open the vote. And I close the vote. And the result is adopted, 57 votes in favor. Thank you very much to all the colleagues.
Hana Jalloul Muro
I would like to say one second, Chair. I would like to say thank you to Javi López and Borja for their excellent job, both of you. Thank you very much.
Sorry we didn't have the time to give you the floor. It was just weird. Thank you very much, Javi and Borja.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much, colleague. And we arrive to the point six, any other business, which I see none. So this concludes our joint meeting INTA-AFET. Thank you very much, colleagues.
So, colleagues, if you agree, we can start again, this time our INTA session, and we start with a vote. We will have to vote on the INTA opinion to the ENVI committee on the CBAM extension, the proposal from the Commission for a regulation amending Regulation 2023/956 of 2023 as regards the extension of the scope to downstream goods and anti-circumvention measures.
INTA rapporteur is Lynn Boylan from the Left group. And as usual, before we start, we should have a test vote, so I open the vote. I don't have a question to you today, but I open the vote. Do we want more air condition? Yes, that's the vote on behalf of the EPP group.
I close the vote. So we are missing four votes.
Was there anyone not voting but still here in the room? So we close the vote. So, let us start the vote. And first we go to amendment 80. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains?
Let us check please. I open the check vote on amendment 80. I close the vote. I close the vote. And it is adopted.
Now compromise amendment number four. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Who abstains? Adopted. This was a block vote with compromise amendment number 5 and it is adopted. Now I have a series of amendments withdrawn and the next amendment is amendment 94.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 95.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 96.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions. I would like to check this please. I open the check vote on amendment 96.
And I close the vote. And it is rejected, yes? It is rejected. Amendment 97, who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions rejected. 99, who is in favor? Against, abstentions adopted. 98, who is in favor? Who is against?
Abstentions rejected. Compromise amendment number one. It's a block vote with compromise amendment number two.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted. Compromise amendment number seven. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions adopted. Amendment number 104. Who is in favor? Against?
Abstentions. I would like to check this, please. 104.
I open the vote. Now I close the vote. And it is rejected. Compromise amendment number six. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Now we go to amendment 108. Who is in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted. Compromise amendment number three. Who is in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise amendment number 10. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Amendment 130, 1-3-0. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Now we have compromise amendment number eight. This is in block with compromise amendment number nine. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Adopted. And we go to amendment 138.
And we go to amendment 138, who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 142, in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 87, in favor? Against?
Abstentions? I would like to check please, amendment 87. I open the vote. I close the vote.
And it is adopted. So we go to amendment 88. Who is in favor? Against? Abstention?
Check. A check vote on 88. I open the check vote. And it is adopted. Amendment 143.
Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted.
Amendment number 29. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Amendment number 1. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions? Rejected.
Compromise amendment number 11. Who is in favor? Against? Abstentions? Adopted.
Compromise amendment 32. Amendment number 32. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions?
May we check this please? Amendment 32. I open the vote. I close the vote. And it is rejected clearly.
I'm sorry for wasting your time. Amendment number five. Who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions?
Rejected. Amendment number six. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions rejected. Amendment number thirty-six, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions adopted.
Amendment number seven, who is in favor? Who is against? Abstentions rejected. And now compromise amendment number twelve, who is in favor? Against?
Abstentions adopted. Amendment number eight, who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment number forty-five. Who is in favor?
Against? Abstentions? Adopted, I think. I would like to check, please, amendment number forty-five. I open the vote.
And I close the vote. And it is adopted. Thank you. Next, amendment number forty-six. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment number forty-eight. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 50. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Adopted. Amendment 51. In favor?
Against? Abstentions? Rejected. 53 was withdrawn. And so this brings us to compromise amend— no.
What? Yes, I'm sorry. We go to amendment number 66. Who is in favor?
Who is against? Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 67, in favor? Against?
Abstentions? Rejected. Amendment 68, in favor? Against? Abstentions?
Rejected. Amendment 14, in favor?
Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 70. In favor. Against.
Abstentions. Rejected. Amendment 73. In favor. Against.
Abstentions. Adopted. Amendment 76. In favor. Against.
Abstentions. Rejected. And so we arrive to the final vote. This is a roll call vote on the proposal as amended. And I open the vote.
Adopted. Thank you very much. 27 votes in favor, 4 votes against, and 5 abstentions.
Speaker 18
Yeah, I know you can say that. We just wait for one minute while people leave the room. Thanks again, Chair. That was a complicated voting list because there were blocks and linked compromises.
Speaker 10
So colleagues, if you allow, I would like to continue our meeting today and we have arrived to point number 12, which is monitoring group activities. We have several monitoring groups and we also have some colleagues who are present and others who could not be today, so I will proceed accordingly. I have in my notes the fact that there should be in the room a group of students from the University of Trier. Are you here? Okay, then you made your presence shown.
I welcome you on behalf of this International Trade Committee. I think that is very good that you are interested in our work and I wish you all your success and good luck in your future endeavors. So yes, then we go back to our meeting's to-do list and first is the monitoring group of Israel.
We have no rapporteur present, so I will just inform you, colleagues, that the monitoring group met on 20th of April 2026. There was an exchange of views with External Action Service on Middle East and Israel, occupied Palestinian territories and Middle East peace process and an exchange of views with DG Trade on bilateral relations with Israel. And the next is monitoring group on Indonesia and I am the rapporteur myself for this monitoring group.
So colleagues, I will just inform you that we had a meeting on the 21st of April, which was the sixth meeting of our Indonesia monitoring group. We had an exchange of views with with civil society professional representatives. We discussed CEPA provisions on trade in services, including related chapters and digital trade.
We also discussed, as usual, with our chief negotiator, Mr. Fabien Gehl from DG TRADE, about about the services commitment in SEPA, which are similar, very close to the majority of commitments that we have in other FTAs that we are discussing or we have concluded with ASEAN countries. Modes of transport are covered, architects and other urban services and tourism is covered, similarly to the FTA with Australia. There are commitments for manufacturing and agricultural-related services. And of course, trade in services is not subject to custom duties.
Key sectors where EU SMEs could gain access are the hardware and software as well as agriculture and digital trade. We discussed on digital trade and we also discussed on investment liberalization included in SEPA. They are intended to create opportunities and possibilities for EU operators. Indonesia accepted for the first time to open its economy on the EU investors in key sectors, renewable energy, semiconductors, electronics and so on. And also SEPA provisions are going beyond other agreements concluded by Indonesia with other partners.
We will go on with our scrutiny work. We have also questions from colleagues in this International Trade Committee about the CEPA implementation. And this week we will have the next monitoring group and I invite you colleagues and shadow rapporteurs to be present.
And I move now to to the joint INTA IMCO working group on the forced labor regulation. Mr. Raphaël Glucksmann is rapporteur but he is not present so I just inform you that there was an exchange of view on the state of implementation of the regulation dealing with the following issues. First, risk database, guidelines, the member states network and the stakeholders expert group, ICSMS and the interconnection with the custom systems, international cooperation and awareness raising activities. Next is the monitoring group on the United States for which you know that our chair is the rapporteur.
He is not present here, so but you I think you have all followed the evolutions, I don't have any comments now to to add to the situation that you know very well. Next monitoring group is on Andean countries, and the monitoring group met on the 4th of May and we have our colleague Juan Ignacio Zoido and I give you the floor please.
Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Muchas gracias, presidente.
Como muy bien dice el pasado 4 de mayo el Monitoring Group de los países andinos se reunió para hablar sobre las relaciones comerciales de la Unión Europea y Perú. Contamos con la presencia del embajador peruano el señor Jorge Chávez representantes del SEAE y de la Dirección General de Comercio. El embajador hizo un balance positivo de la relación y señaló que si bien el comercio bilateral ha crecido en términos nominales en términos reales lleva años estancado.
También insistió en las preocupaciones del Perú frente al reglamento de desforestación y el impacto negativo que puede tener en la política antidrogas y los programas de erradicación de cultivos ilícitos en la región. E hizo una invitación a los inversores europeos para que apuesten más por las oportunidades que ofrece el país, concretamente en minerales críticos. Es un sector con gran potencial pero donde no hay suficiente capital europeo frente a los potentes flujos financieros de otras grandes economías. Por su parte, la Comisión apuntó a que más de la mitad del comercio entre la Unión Europea y Perú no aprovecha las ventajas del acuerdo, y eso es algo que tenemos que corregir.
Finalmente, el Servicio Europeo de Acción Exterior centró su intervención en las recientes elecciones presidenciales peruanas. Subrayó que la estabilidad política que salga de este proceso será determinante para avanzar en la relación bilateral y en sectores estratégicos como los minerales críticos. La segunda vuelta celebrada el 7 de junio ha dejado un resultado muy ajustado, con Keiko Fujimori por delante por un margen estrecho y la proclamación oficial todavía pendiente.
Muchas gracias, presidente.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much. And thank you. And the next monitoring group is with relations on Canada, which met on the 5th of May. We have no rapporteur present, but I can tell you that it was an exchange of view with DG Trade on the first round of negotiations on the EU-Canada Digital Trade Agreement. And of course, we have the good news of ratification in Belgium of the CETA, the EU-Canada agreement, long-awaited ratification.
Next is monitoring group on Ukraine. We do not have the rapporteur, but the monitoring group met on the 5th of May and held an exchange of view on the state of play of implementation of the Ukraine support loan with DG ENER and DG ECFIN. We also had, for those interested, a very good exchange of views yesterday on the Ukraine loan facility. I'm sorry, colleagues. Next one is monitoring group on critical raw materials, and we have colleague Saskia Bricmont, the rapporteur, and I give you the floor, please.
Saskia Bricmont
Thank you very much, chair. I don't know if it's worth it to debrief because everything is already leaked in Politico. And for that, I would like to apologize also to DG Trade and GROW because we had open and in camera exchanges, and it's important to respect that. The meeting focused on the EU-US plans regarding CRMs, and so it's a quite sensitive topic, you know it.
On 24th of April they announced the conclusion of a bilateral memorandum of understanding and a joint action plan in view of a plurilateral cooperation open to like-minded countries, Japan, South Korea, Mexico and G7 countries at the same time. We heard two experts and the Commission. As usual, you know it, the European Parliament has no say in any of these arrangements, which is quite problematic because the MOUs are to be seen in the context also the more global context and this one in the context of the Turnberry deal.
The two texts are a consequence of the initiative launched by Rubio in February with a joint press statement EU-US-Japan and the MOU and the joint action plan deviate from the usual transactional approach from the Trump administration in the sense that there are explicit commitments to international law obligations. It mentions G7 and also there are references to high market standards and sustainability but also secondary raw market circularity and recycling. It could pave the way for joint public procurement, when it comes to price mechanism nothing is settled there, no mechanism has been designed or agreed upon.
One of the experts mentioned that in April, China passed two new laws similar to our anti-coercion instrument, which could be used against such EU-US initiative, which aim at de-risking from China. An expert also warned that what needs to be avoided is the lock-in of super high returns in protective markets, because that would play in favor of monopolies. Another question raised was about the participation on an equal footing of producing countries, and this question is still open. In the course of the exchange, we learned that Zambia has adopted new sustainability standards based on international accounting standards, focusing on general and climate-related disclosures.
Starting January 2025, organizations in Zambia must apply these standards for annual reporting, aiming to enhance transparency and align with global best practices. It is something that would deserve further attention, as it can inspire us in the context of our MOUs and of the future plurilateral cooperation.
As you understand, we're not done yet with the EU-US cooperation on CRM and we will have to follow that closely in the coming months. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much for this and we move to the next monitoring group, which is the monitoring group on Russia. And the rapporteur is Inese Vaidere, but on behalf of her, our EPP group coordinator will speak, Jörgen Warborn, the floor is yours.
Jörgen Warborn
Thank you, Chair. So the inter-monitoring group on Russia focused on imports on fishery products originating from the Russian Federation. The discussion highlighted the scale of this trade.
Each year, the EU imports Russian fishery products worth several hundred million euros, providing an important source of revenue for Russia and indirectly financing its war of aggression against Ukraine. Although Russian imports currently account for a substantial share of supplies of certain species, alternative sources are available, including from Norway, Iceland, and the United States. INTA has now decided to jointly with PECH to call on the Commission to propose a ban on imports of Russian fish and fishery products, and of course the monitoring group will continue to follow these developments closely. Thank you.
Speaker 10
I never asked if anyone has questions, but of course you can ask questions after the reports, colleagues. But if it's not the case, then the next monitoring group is on Philippines, and I give back the floor to Jörgen Warborn.
Jörgen Warborn
Yes, it's on behalf of myself. So we had the last monitoring group on the 2nd of June. It is actually the fifth of this legislative term.
And as you know, we are currently engaged in the negotiation for a free trade agreement with the Philippines, and we are actually having a very good pace on this. We have very advanced discussions and hopefully we will conclude an agreement with them during this year.
In this context, the members of the committee have already had a very interesting and useful exchange of views with Mrs. Dora Correia, director and chief negotiator in DG Trade, on the state of play of the negotiations after the latest round, which took place between 18th and 22nd of May. Those latest discussions represented the sixth round of very friendly and constructive negotiations with the Philippines. It is worth mentioning the context surrounding the negotiations, more precisely the difficult national energy emergency brought about by the war in the Middle East due to the Philippines being 90% dependent on fuel from abroad, which drives the Philippines in their quest to diversify. During the sixth round, the market access discussions continued and the work on the text advanced.
Three chapters, the digital trade chapter, the intellectual property right chapter, and the final provision chapter, were closed, bringing the total number of closed chapters to 17. The level of ambition in the digital trade and IPR chapter seems to be very high, with the text very close to the EU standards. With EU priority being the prohibition of data localization, carve-outs for private data, and respectively the IPR enforcement and precautionary measures.
The final provision chapter includes reference to the Paris Agreement, commitments for the protection of human rights and the non-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. Good progress was made for a few other chapters, such as customs, trade facilitation and dispute settlement, and those chapters could be closed in intersession discussions. Still open are the market access offers, the AI provisions and the public procurement chapters. Regarding the agriculture and fisheries sector, it was made clear that the EU and Philippine relevant markets are mostly complementary.
No new formal round of negotiations is foreseen for the moment, but the chief negotiators, the two chief negotiators will meet in Brussels next week to try to advance as much as possible the discussions and possibly conclude more chapters. When it comes to the free trade agreement's timetable, it looks more and more probable that the negotiations can be concluded in the months to come. Things will become clearer after the chief negotiators meet next week. Thank you.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much for this briefing. Any questions? If it is not the case, I move on to the monitoring group on e-commerce and our rapporteur is colleague Brando Benifei. Please, you have the floor.
Brando Benifei
Thank you, Chair. Dear colleagues, on June the 2nd, the monitoring group on e-commerce met with DG TRADE to discuss the outcomes of the ministerial conference number 14 of the WTO in Yaoundé and the outlook for the upcoming July General Council in Geneva. The debrief focused on the multilateral e-commerce agenda and the plurilateral e-commerce agreement. Our discussion primarily focused on the lapsing of the e-commerce moratorium.
For the first time since 1998, electronic transmissions are no longer multilaterally shielded from custom duties. The Commission briefed us that certain WTO members ultimately blocked the consensus, preferring a shorter extension over a permanent one, largely due to broader political leverage. This lapse risks fragmenting digital trade. During the meeting, members raised specific concerns about the European music and audiovisual sectors. Because these sectors are often carved out of our bilateral free trade agreements, they relied heavily on this multilateral safety net.
Currently, the Commission is consulting member states on whether the EU should join a US-led plurilateral pledge to voluntarily maintain the duty-free practice. On a more positive note, we discussed the interim implementation of the plurilateral e-commerce agreement. 66 WTO members covering roughly 70% of global trade have agreed to move forward with this framework, which establishes baseline rules for the digital trade. The agreement requires 45 ratifications to enter into force. The Commission noted that the EU ratification will count as 27, meaning swift EU action will represent a major step forward.
The Commission stressed that while this plurilateral arrangement provides necessary stability for businesses, the ultimate objective remains incorporating these rules into the multilateral WTO framework. Thank you very much.
Speaker 10
Thank you very much for this. If there are supplementary questions. If it is not the case, then I move on to the monitoring group on China which took place in the 2nd of June, but we don't have a rapporteur to report on it.
So I move on to the monitoring group on India, which met on the third of June, and also they had an exchange of view with the Federation of European Business in India and with DG Trade. Rapporteur cannot be present. So I move to the final monitoring group, and rapporteur here is present because we have the monitoring group of Australia, and I give again the floor to Jörgen Warborn, please.
Jörgen Warborn
Thank you, Chair. So the monitoring group on Australia met on the third of June. And as you all know, negotiations for the free trade agreements were concluded on the 24th of March this year.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.