This week brought a series of developments around the trade agreement between the European Union and the Mercosur countries. On Monday, the European Parliament—introducing several amendments—backed a regulation implementing a bilateral safeguard clause intended to better protect the interests of European farmers. However, as Poland’s Ministry of Agriculture reported, some of the proposals were revised again during trilogue negotiations with other EU institutions. Pressure to conclude the work is growing, and with it the opposition. On Thursday, 18 December, around 10,000 farmers took to the streets of Brussels, protesting—among other things—against the agreement.
“As far as safeguard clauses are concerned, I had high hopes that they would genuinely improve farmers’ situation. Unfortunately, it is an illusion and a fiction, because they are meant mainly to soothe the consciences of those who take responsibility for dismantling European agriculture, while doing little to improve the situation,” Waldemar Buda, a Law and Justice (PiS) Member of the European Parliament, told Newseria. He voted against the regulation in the European Parliament, arguing that the safeguards are insufficient.
In October 2025, the European Commission presented a draft regulation on safeguard proceedings for imports of agricultural goods from Mercosur—Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay. The proposal sets out how the EU could temporarily suspend tariff preferences for certain agricultural products deemed sensitive (such as poultry or beef) if it determines that such imports are harming EU producers. During the European Parliament’s work, MEPs sought to strengthen the protection instruments by proposing amendments. On 16 December, Parliament supported, among other things, launching safeguard procedures if imports of sensitive agricultural products rose by an average of 5% over three years (compared with a 10% year-on-year threshold in the Commission’s proposal), or if the price of a given product fell by 5%. The amendments also called for quarterly reporting on market developments, shorter safeguard proceedings, and greater automaticity in Commission action.
“The key amendments on safety clauses and effective protection of Polish farmers secured a majority in the European Parliament,” Krzysztof Hetman, an MEP from the Polish People’s Party (PSL), said on Tuesday after the vote. “The European Parliament adopted a call that a Brazilian or Argentine farmer who wants to produce for the EU market must do so under the same rules and conditions that apply to Polish and European farmers.”
Parliament adopted an amendment introducing a reciprocity mechanism. Under it, the European Commission could adopt safeguard measures if there is credible evidence that imports benefiting from tariff preferences do not meet equivalent requirements—among others—on environmental protection, animal welfare, or food safety that apply to producers within the European Union.
Two days later, during trilogue negotiations, some of the amendments were altered again. Under the compromise reached, the European Commission would be able to open safeguard proceedings not at a 5% threshold, but only if there is an 8% increase in imports from Mercosur or an 8% drop in the import price of a given product compared with the average of the last three years. At the same time, the discretionary nature of the Commission’s decisions was maintained, along with a compromise on import monitoring: reports are to be presented “at least every six months,” rather than every three months as MEPs had proposed. In trilogue, Parliament also dropped provisions on the automatic introduction of safeguards and on shortening the deadlines for concluding proceedings.
As the Council of the EU underlined in its statement, the Commission is to continuously and proactively monitor imports of identified sensitive products and, at least once every six months, submit reports to Parliament and the Council on market developments and the risk of harm to EU producers.
“Unfortunately, I have very bad experience with such provisions from the crisis related to inflows of food from Ukraine. They were written in a similar way and it ended with a flood of imports—so they were not effective. Whether they will work today in the case of imports from South America, which is larger and has far greater production potential—I have serious doubts,” Buda said.
Negotiations surrounding the EU–Mercosur deal have been accompanied by strong opposition from farming communities. On Thursday in Brussels, around 10,000 farmers from all 27 EU member states demonstrated—according to the Copa-Cogeca farmers’ organisation. One of the protest’s main demands was opposition to trade agreements that, in the view of agricultural groups, do not ensure effective protection of EU production standards and the most vulnerable agricultural sectors.
“I haven’t heard a single optimistic voice from farmers. Everyone who analyses this calmly, outside of politics, believes the clauses are insufficient. I don’t know anyone who feels reassured,” the PiS politician said. “These clauses improve nothing, they provide no guarantees to farmers—please don’t believe they will calm anyone down. I would not take responsibility for telling farmers ‘It’s OK,’ because it isn’t.”
As Poland’s Ministry of Agriculture recalls, the EU–Mercosur agreement is being processed as two legal instruments: an interim trade agreement and the main partnership agreement. The regulation on safeguard clauses is intended to apply to both documents. For the interim agreement to enter into force, approval by the EU Council under qualified majority voting and consent of the European Parliament would be sufficient. To form a blocking minority, opposition from Poland, France and Italy, plus at least one additional member state, would be required.
The European Commission is pushing to adopt the interim agreement as quickly as possible, and its signing was provisionally planned for 20 December during Ursula von der Leyen’s visit to Brazil. A key step is expected to be the vote in COREPER—the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the EU member states—on 19 December.
The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development stresses that Poland—like France and Italy—has reaffirmed its opposition to the agreement with Mercosur in its current form and its readiness to act jointly within a blocking coalition.
Buda also points to strategic risks linked to the European Union becoming dependent on imports from distant regions.
“I cannot imagine a situation in which a global conflict erupts and Russia blocks a trade route 10,000 kilometres away—because that’s the distance separating us from Brazil—and we end up halting soy supplies for animal feed production across the European Union. That would have dramatic consequences,” he said. “What did Russia do in Ukraine? The first step was blocking the Black Sea to prevent Ukrainian grain exports—an economic удар. It would do exactly the same to Europe. Anyone who stands behind this agreement bears full responsibility for future, enormous problems.”
