Admittedly, the LSE report acknowledges that its more positive analysis depends on the policy accompanying the trade agreement presented in the chapter on sustainable trade. This part binds Mercosur countries, in particular Brazil, to implement the Paris Agreement, which includes an obligation to stop illegal deforestation in the Amazon by 2030 and legal obligations to protect forests. Many authorities consider that the level of ambition is not high enough and that, in some cases, there are not enough binding provisions in their areas of expertise. Some trade organisations highlight the competitive advantages that the agreement will offer to businesses and stress that it is now easier for the EU and Mercosur to cooperate on important sustainability issues. The environmental impact of the agreement depends to a large extent on national legislation and countries` environmental ambitions, as well as on the preferences and initiatives of consumers and businesses. What we do know is that the Mercosur agreement will affect the economies of both sides, which in turn will have environmental repercussions. Ratification of the agreement must be approved internally by each EU country. It faces opposition from local agricultural sectors, especially in Ireland, Poland and Belgium, represented by the COPA-COGECA organisation for European farmers. If the agreement is adopted in Europe, the Mercosur region will also be an uncertain bet. Argentine President Macri is facing firm opposition from the Peronist movement which, after negative remarks about the agreement and a general protectionist attitude, is unlikely to ratify the agreement if he wins the elections. It is clear that the basis for powerful European economies is to first have a strong economic sector at home.
Measures should be taken to ensure that the agreement does not affect activities at local level. Finally, the EU and Mercosur do not have the same organisational capacities. These countries need to think about protecting their homes and carefully combine this force with a good infusion of foreign direct investment. On the other hand, by releasing $4 billion in tariffs a year, Europeans will become more competitive for their businesses and benefit industry. However, the price of increased beef exports, although limited by a quota, could affect certain sectors of European agriculture. As for the diplomatic importance of the agreement, Argentina, in particular, would gain financial credibility for foreign investors after falling behind in the past in paying the debt. . . .