Meco and ASTM conference: The fatal consequences of an EU-MERCOSUR agreement

On 26 June 2025, the Brazilian agronomist and philosopher Prof. Dr Antônio Inácio Andrioli was a guest at the Pafendall Oekozenter to talk about the effects of the planned EU-Mercosur trade agreement. He gave an urgent warning about the social and environmental consequences of this agreement, particularly for the countries of the Global South. “The EU-Mercosur agreement primarily serves the interests of large corporations – on both sides of the Atlantic – and undermines the rights of small farmers, indigenous peoples and environmentalists,” Andrioli said right at the beginning of his speech.

The native Brazilian, who now teaches at the Universidade Federal da Fronteira Sul, gave an impressive account of how the agreement would further boost the export of agricultural commodities such as soya and beef – and thus also the deforestation of rainforest areas, the use of highly hazardous pesticides and the displacement of entire communities. “It’s a paradox: while Europe has long since banned pesticides such as paraquat or atrazine, these very substances are produced in South America – often by European companies – and continue to be used there,” he emphasised. For the local population, this is a “daily attack on their health”.

Using concrete figures, he emphasised the extent to which the Mercosur agreement would drive deforestation in the Amazon.

Andrioli also criticised the fact that the agreement does not contain any binding mechanisms to enforce environmental and human rights standards. Although there are sustainability chapters, these are toothless and cannot be enforced in the event of violations. It is particularly problematic that the deal primarily serves the interests of the European automotive industry – in return for opening up the South American agricultural markets. “The true cost of this agreement will be paid by nature – and the next generation,” said Andrioli.

Andrioli emphasised that the agreement would meet with widespread opposition from society in the countries affected. Unfortunately, the fact is that the large landowners, who would benefit most from the agreement through agricultural exports, occupy very powerful positions in courts and politics and can therefore exert considerable influence. Land that would then be lost for local production… and would also be farmed under undignified and problematic conditions from a biodiversity perspective.

In the subsequent dialogue with the audience, it became clear how great the need for alternative trade models is. Instead of focussing on neoliberal free trade logic, the EU should base trade relations on solidarity, fair trade and ecological responsibility. Andrioli argued in favour of a trade policy that protects local markets, strengthens farming structures and focuses on fair partnerships – even across continents.

His conclusion was clear: “This agreement must not be ratified as it stands. If we are serious about climate protection and human rights, we need a radical change of course in trade policy.” It was also emphasised that the EU is planning to “split” the agreement, i.e. to divide it up so that the trade agreement can only be ratified in the European Parliament, bypassing the parliaments of the member states. However, this would undermine basic democratic principles and undermine trust in the EU institutions.

Jeff Boonen, President of the Agriculture Commission of the Chamber of Representatives, who had come to speak in favour of the agreement, stated that, in the government’s view, there were also geopolitical reasons in favour of the agreement.

However, those present noted that it had been said for years that they would not want to sign an agreement with such a problematic person as the former President of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro. Prof. Dr Antônio Inácio Andriol emphasised that the basic argument of who you sign such an agreement with still applies. Many are convinced that Argentinian President Milei is comparable to Bolsonaro in terms of his policies.

In the end, there was a clear analysis of the evening: the Mercosur agreement would be a problem for people in Europe, as local farmers would be exposed to additional competition, pesticides would be imported, and so on. But the big losers would once again be the Mercosur countries affected! The consequences there would be extremely dramatic. The supposed geopolitical considerations in favour of the Mercosur agreement should actually mean exactly the opposite: no additional exploitation of the people of these countries, no agreements with highly controversial governments.

The conference ended with much reflection – and a clear appeal to politicians and civil society to stop this agreement. All participants had the opportunity to sign two petitions from We Move Europe and Greenpeace.

Curious? Interested in more concrete facts, figures and considerations? Then take a look at the video of the evening event or take a look at the PowerPoint slides from the evening.