On 17 January 2026, after more than twenty years of complex negotiations, the signature in Paraguay gave the formal green light to the agreement between the European Union and Mercosur. The objective is strategic: to consolidate a free trade area involving 718 million people and a fifth of the global economy, guaranteeing Europe access to critical minerals.
However, on 21 January the European Chamber slowed down: with 334 yes, 324 no and 11 abstentions, the motion of the Left sent the text back to the Court of Justice to verify its adherence to the Treaties. While the Commission expresses regret, the ratification vote remains frozen, despite the possibility of only temporary entry into force.
If on the economic front the 90% reduction in duties, envisaged by the agreement between the EU and South America, promises growth in their respective GDPs, on an ecological level the data raise structural questions about the stability of the Green Deal.
Under the terms of the agreement, Europe will open its borders to 99,000 tonnes per year of beef at a preferential rate of 7.5%, as well as large quotas of poultry, sugar and rice. This is a transformation of trade flows which, according to estimates by the European Chamber’s technical groups, could result in a 25% increase in deforestation in South America in the long term, driven by the need to convert new natural areas into pastures and plantations.
Pressure on forests and the soy market
The pillar of the agreement is based on the export of raw materials whose production has historically been the main driver of the destruction of ecosystems. The data highlights a complex reality: every three minutes an area of rainforest equal to a football field disappears due to imports of basic products into the EU from Mercosur countries.
In this context, the main concern concerns the effectiveness of controls. Despite the Commission’s reassurances, the postponement of the European Regulation to Stop Importing Deforestation (EUDR) and the uncertainties over the Moratorium on soy in the Amazon make it difficult to guarantee the traceability of products. The increase in European demand will not only affect forests, but also the energy sector: bioethanol exports to the Old Continent could in fact grow six times, reaching 650,000 tonnes.
The problem of pesticides and the loss of biodiversity
The environmental impact of the agreement is not limited to land consumption, but directly involves agricultural chemistry. Free trade risks encouraging an increase in the use of plant protection products and pesticides, substances that the UN’s Intergovernmental Scientific-Political Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES) indicates as one of the five determining factors of global biodiversity loss.
The volumes at stake are significant. According to data from the think tank Heinrich Böll Institute, in 2018 Argentina alone used 240,000 tons of glyphosate for soy production. The elimination of tariff barriers could further incentivize this intensive agricultural model, with direct repercussions on environmental pollution and the health of ecosystems, while at the same time threatening the natural resources managed by indigenous populations, often subject to expropriations in favor of agro-industry.
The legal referral to the Court of Justice
The tension around the sustainability of the treaty resulted, as aforementioned, on 21 January 2026, in a crucial institutional transition. The European Parliament approved the request for an opinion from the Court of Justice of the European Union to verify the compatibility of the agreement with the community legal framework.
Although the judiciary’s decision does not prevent the provisional application of the agreement, it freezes its definitive ratification, initially scheduled for the spring. This opens a phase of uncertainty: while the industry sees in the pact protection for 350 products with geographical indications, the analysis of environmental risks suggests that the ecological cost of free trade could exceed the declared commercial benefits.
