WORLD WORLDWIDE EUROPE ITALY ITALIA ROME - news journal UPDATE - (en) Italy, Sicilia Libertaria #470 - Environment, Food, Climate - Let's Disagree with the Mercosur-EU Agreement (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

On May 1, 2026, the free trade agreement between the EU and the countries of Mercosur, the South American common market that includes Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay, and Uruguay, entered into force provisionally as an interim trade pact. The EU hopes to gain easier access to the South American market for its exports; the sectors most affected are the automotive and pharmaceutical sectors, but also finance and the public procurement system, which has so far been closed to foreign companies.

Furthermore, the aim is to reduce Europe's dependence on markets such as the US, which has become difficult due to tariffs, or China, especially for raw materials needed for the industrial sector. The stated objectives of this agreement are the need to create more stable rules for trade and investment, food safety, environmental protection, and competition; Tariffs will be effectively abolished on approximately 90% of European exports and imports from South America. This will create, as stated on the European Union website, a free trade area involving 700 million people, eliminating trade barriers, creating jobs and business opportunities, providing solid guarantees for EU regulations, and ensuring real competition. This is followed by estimates of the expected results by 2040 in terms of increased GDP, annual exports, and jobs, all within the EU. It's a wonderful agreement, but it's unfortunate that numerous demonstrations have been held against it, both in Europe and in South American countries. European farmers, in particular, fear that competition from cheaper South American products will harm EU producers, and they also raise the risk that these products are contaminated with substances banned in Europe because they are considered dangerous, but used in these countries. On the other hand, South American farmers are well aware that the agreement is the product of the enduring colonial, neocolonial, or green colonialist logic, as it would view them as exporters of low-cost agricultural, mineral, and energy raw materials and importers of processed industrial goods, technology, and advanced services. The projected increased exports of goods such as meat, soy, corn, sugarcane ethanol, and minerals will inevitably lead to land grabbing by multinational agri-food companies, resulting in the expropriation of local and indigenous communities; intensifying deforestation (the EU is the recipient of 50% of Brazilian products linked to deforestation, particularly animal feed and vegetable oils for the food industry, but also purchases 117,000 tons of beef and 80,500 tons of leather from Brazil, approximately 20% of global imports of these products, much of which comes from deforested areas); the massive use of pesticides, contaminating soil and water; the loss of biodiversity; and the increase in territorial conflicts and violence. The sustainable development clauses in the treaty, which transfer responsibility for ensuring compliance with environmental standards to South American countries, are the fig leaf that will allow European countries to import certified green raw materials, making environmental damage, worker exploitation, and land dispossession invisible to European consumers.
Beyond the critical issues highlighted in the agreement-and there are many others-the central problem lies in its underlying logic, the legitimization of a structurally unsustainable model: reconciling environmental protection with unlimited growth in production and consumption, a growth that can only be achieved for a portion of the population and only by shifting the costs to another portion, and to the natural environment. It's yet another reintroduction of the extractive model, painted over with a coat of cheap environmentalism. In a time of crisis like the current one and with climate prospects far from rosy, priorities should be different. First, we should move toward food sovereignty, pursued through socially responsible agriculture that promotes subsistence practices and small-scale farmers capable of combining production with respect for the environment and its preservation for future generations. At the same time, effective protection of indigenous communities, their traditional practices, and the lands on which they live is essential. No less important is the recognition of Western societies' historical debt to the global South, which serves as a starting point for building international relations based on the defense of all life forms and the environment, solidarity, and respect for diversity. If there is a future, it will be a less technological but more humane one, capable of transcending capitalist logic and exploring alternatives for national and international cooperation aimed at reducing inequalities and environmental impacts, limiting dependence on long supply chains, and re-regionalizing trade.

Brunella Missorici

https://www.sicilialibertaria.it/wp-content/uploads/giugno2026_compressed-1.pdf
_________________________________________

Source: A-infos-en@ainfos.ca