The European Parliament's Committee on International Trade (INTA) on 22 June 2026 debated the EU-South Africa Clean Trade and Investment Partnership (CTIP) and a study on mini trade deals, with MEPs raising concerns over the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism (CBAM), the bypassing of democratic scrutiny, and the effectiveness of non-binding instruments.
Christophe Clergeau (S&D) reported that South Africa has criticised CBAM, while Kris Van Dijck (ECR) noted a South African MP questioning whether the EU mission was primarily about raw materials. Hannah Neumann (Greens/EFA) stressed that the raw materials memorandum of understanding must support local processing and warned that cuts to the Global Gateway programme harm relations with Africa.
On the study of mini trade deals, Jörgen Warborn (EPP) said such deals have 'zero or weak trade effect' and should serve as stepping stones to binding free trade agreements. Jean-Marc Germain (S&D) warned that CTIPs and MOUs bypass democratic scrutiny. Commission official Jan Willem Wehrheiden rejected the term 'mini trade deals' and the claim that non-binding instruments circumvent Article 218 TFEU, arguing it is too early to assess their effectiveness. Professor Maurer countered that the Namibia MOU (2022) failed when Namibia banned raw material exports shortly after.
Consensus existed on deepening EU-South Africa ties; Chair B. Lange (S&D) called the mission fruitful. Next steps: Germain asked the Commission to publish CTIP roadmaps, set indicators, include financial commitments, and create pathways to binding agreements. Maurer recommended Parliament use budgetary leverage and issue a legislative initiative report on local value addition indicators.
Affected stakeholders include South African exporters (facing CBAM costs), EU investors (uncertainty from non-binding deals), raw material sectors (potential supply disruptions), and civil society (concerns over democratic oversight).