With the signing of the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement this weekend, a spectre of the past comes back to haunt Europe’s farmers. But there is still a political window to save their future
Hannes Lorenzen is President of ARC 2020
Cross-posted from ARC 2020
Since we posted this the EU parliament has decided to refer this issue to the European Court of Justice. This could delay Mercosur trade deal by at least two years
Photo: Hannes Lorenzen
Brussels has been the scene of violent protests against the EU-Mercosur trade agreement. Young farmers, in particular, unleashed their despair and anger by hurling heavy equipment and tons of potatoes at security forces. Their key message: “STOP Mercosur – Free trade is destroying our future.”
Young farmers’ stomachs are in knots about an uncertain future: growing economic risks, political pressures, and emotional burdens. Their income and capacity to invest depend on subsidies that the EU may no longer provide. Agricultural markets have become unpredictable, and climate change threatens the very existence of their farms.
At the mercy of global trade
The Mercosur agreement holds up a mirror to the decisions of the past, when European agricultural policy was left at the mercy of global trade. The Blair House Agreement between the United States and Europe in 1992 paved the way for multinational agribusinesses to acquire market power on both sides of the Atlantic. Only the biggest farms could play this game; the vast majority were exposed to volatile global food markets and speculation. Mercosur will make European farmers more vulnerable to international capital and commodities flows.
The EU’s Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) was originally designed to provide sufficient and affordable food for Europeans and guarantee a fair income for farmers. Things have turned out differently. Today, there is enough food, but an increasing proportion of it comes from abroad. France was a net exporter of agri-food products for 50 years; as of last year, no longer (with the exception of wines and spirits). Only mega-farms can compete with agriculture in the United States or Latin America. The vast majority of French farms survive, if at all, thanks to EU subsidies that often represent more than 70% of their income.
Buckling under pressure
Europe was divided over this agreement. France and Poland opposed it to appease farmers groups. Italy opposed it for a time in order to gain concessions. Germany pushed intensely for signing because it has a trade deficit in agricultural products, except for the surplus of meat exported to China, but a significant export surplus in industrial products, which is threatened by US tariffs. Chancellor Merz put maximum pressure on his counterparts to reverse the EU’s ban on combustion engine cars in Europe by 2030. Mercosur will allow German industry to export the cars of the past to Latin America. The agrochemical industry will also benefit. The agreement will allow more pesticides to be exported to South America, even substances whose use is banned in the EU, while food produced using these pesticides will be allowed to be sold in the EU.
The European Commission is congratulating itself for having negotiated protections for European farmers. The agreement’s “safeguard clauses” are a smokescreen. These exemptions have never survived the reality of international trade. The EU is already engaged in a race to the bottom on environmental and social rules for international trade. The corporate sustainability law was recently gutted; the deforestation law has been dismantled; the EU’s climate ambition ebbed at COP 30 in Brazil; the precautionary principle for sales of agrochemicals and “new” GMOs was sacrificed by the European Commission. These clauses are nothing but placebo sedatives. Quotas for beef imports into the EU and compensation for lost income: this is the grim reality of European farmers forced to compete on unfair terms. Free trade of beef from clear-felled tropical forests in exchange for outdated cars and banned chemicals is utter madness.
Now what?
The agreement is signed. Now what? How do we untangle the knot that’s tightening in the stomachs of young farmers and move towards practical solutions? The public debate on environmentally friendly and socially responsible food trade must continue. Certainly, the heads of state and government have approved the Mercosur trade agreement, but Mrs. von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, cannot act as she sees fit. The European Parliament will have to ratify this agreement in March for it to be finally implemented. A group of MEPs, at the instigation of French MPs, is seeking to refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. Indeed, the rollbacks in the agreement in a number of areas –in particular its foreseeable impact on deforestation in the Amazon and, in turn, on global heating– contradict the EU’s other international commitments, especially the 2015 Paris Agreement. Member States can also refer the matter to the European Court, which would suspend the implementation process. Building on the unanimous vote against the free trade agreement in France’s National Assembly, French premier Mr. Lecornu and his government could build a European coalition with Ireland, Poland, and other states that reject a trade policy from another era and jointly refer the matter to the European Court of Justice. The issue goes beyond agriculture; it is now a question of respecting the rule of law and the European Union’s commitments at international level.
Click here to read the French version.
This article was originally published in French in Le Monde on Saturday 17 January 2026
Be the first to comment