At the end of 2020, the EU Commission announced a reorientation of EU trade policy so that foreign trade is closely linked to EU climate targets in line with the European Green Deal. This should make a significant contribution to solving the climate crisis and improving labour, social and environmental standards. However, the agreement with Chile has significant weaknesses that jeopardise these goals and are highly problematic from an employee perspective.

Investment protection. Favouring corporations jeopardises social and ecological progress
The agreement with Chile contains special rights of action for corporations. This allows companies to sue states before private arbitration tribunals for improving labour rights or climate protection if profit expectations are not met. The investment protection in this agreement continues to promote the unfair favouring of foreign corporations. Such special rights of action must be reduced rather than extended. In the case of Chile, they could thwart necessary legislative initiatives in the areas of environmental protection, labour law or the rights of indigenous peoples in the future.

Agriculture. Poor working conditions and dangerous pesticides
Low wages, child labour and land grab: all of these problems are commonplace for workers in Chilean export agriculture. The agreement will further exacerbate them as it increases trade even more. However, it also favours the export of pesticides from the EU to Chile. Although these are banned in the EU, European companies are nevertheless allowed to produce and export them. The use of these products is associated with poisoning, rising cancer rates and deformities in children. And that is not all: as a result of the agreement, pesticide-contaminated fruit and vegetables are ending up on our plates in Europe even more frequently.

Mining. Exploitation instead of own industrial development
Chile's wealth of natural resources is seen as an important argument in favour of the new agreement; however, the inhumane and exploitative conditions in mining are usually ignored. Child labour, serious accidents, obstruction of trade unions and toxic chemicals are a bitter reality and endanger workers, residents, indigenous communities and nature. The agreement will also largely prohibit Chile from taking measures to develop its own raw materials processing industry, for example through export restrictions and export monopolies. Instead of contributing to economic development, it makes it impossible.

Sustainability. Toothless declarations of intent instead of effective sanctions
The sustainability chapter of the interim trade agreement is intended to protect labour, environmental and climate standards. However, as is unfortunately common, it is not subject to the general dispute settlement procedure, according to which sanctions can be imposed if the applicable regulations are breached. This means that it cannot be enforced, contrary to what the EU Commission actually envisages, and violations cannot be sanctioned. The sustainability chapter is therefore toothless and does not do justice to the major problems in the world of work, agriculture and mining.

Public services. Gaps in protection
Critical areas of infrastructure and public services are not completely excluded from the agreement, not even in essential areas such as water supply. If privatisation is reversed, for example, the public sector is threatened by corporate rights of action. Public services must be completely excluded from trade agreements in order to guarantee public room for manoeuvre and security of supply. The expansion and safeguarding of liberalisation, as in this agreement, also threatens the necessary economic regionalisation and the socio-ecological orientation of public contracts.

In a letter to all members of the EU Parliament's Trade Committee, the Chamber of Labour expressly called on them to vote against the agreement. On 24 January, however, the agreement was adopted by the Committee. The vote in plenary will follow in February. It is to be hoped that the agreement will be rejected after all. 

Further information:
AK EUROPA: No to the EU's trade and investment agreement with Chile
EU Commission: EU-Chile Advanced Framework Agreement
EU Commission: EU trade relations with Chile. Facts, figures and latest developments.
EU-Chile Abkommen: Nein zu veralteter Handelspolitik! (EU-Chile Agreement: No to outdated trade policy!) (German only)
HesaMag: The bitter taste of Chilean fruit sold in Europe