Mercosur trade deal: what are the implications for the EU Deforestation Regulation?

Klervi Le Guenic, senior campaigner on tropical forests of French NGO Canopée, explores the interface between Mercosur and the EUDR.

We could hear shouts of joy from the farmers and NGOs gathered in front of the European Parliament on 21 January 2026: the MEPs had just voted to refer the Mercosur Agreement to the Court of Justice of the European Union to check whether the texts of the agreement comply with EU treaties. This means it could be postponed for 18 months to two years.  

By doing so, the MEPs have shown they care about European farmers, and – at least some of them – about deforestation.  

For the last couple of years, civil society has been raising the alarm about the impact that the deal would have on the forests of Brazil, Paraguay, Uruguay and Argentina. By increasing EU imports of beef from Mercosur countries, where deforestation is rampant, it is threatening at least 700,000 hectares (and this is likely an underestimation).  

This fear has been increasing since a “rebalancing mechanism” was added to the last version of the text. Indeed, now the risk of a trade dispute with Mercosur looms, if the EU were to put in place additional environmental measures – which could apply to the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). If it is the case and leather, soy, wood, beef, and coffee from these countries are allowed to enter the EU market without guarantees of not causing deforestation after the EUDR cut-off date, the impact of the deal would double in 10 years.  

Blocking the EU-Mercosur agreement is therefore essential to protect Brazilian, Paraguayan, Argentinian and Uruguayan forests. While this vote is a first, great victory, the deal is not dead. Pressure is already building for a provisional application of the agreement, which would be a tremendous democratic scandal.  

In this scenario, the EUDR is the last defence against deforestation-linked commodities from Mercosur countries. More than ever, it will be essential for the European Commission and Member States to mobilise to avoid a further reopening and postponing this key regulation.  

The new context might completely change the balance of power, as European farmers could join the fight for the EUDR as a way to avoid unfair competition with national commodities and production methods.   

Last year, the European Commission tried to maintain the 30 December 2025 application date of the EUDR. But by proposing new amendments to streamline its obligations in October 2025, it opened Pandora’s box and enabled a weakening of the law by the Council and Parliament.   

Might the European Commission – so strongly in favour of the Mercosur agreement – double down on efforts to defend the EUDR this year, as a way of calming down opposition to the deal?  

In a context where the alliance between the European right and the far-right has already led to two delays and one re-opening of the text, how will these groups position themselves in the new context?  

Could this also reshuffle the cards in the Council: could Germany drop its objections to the EUDR to obtain support on Mercosur; could France strengthen its support to please – and calm – its farmers?  

The EU co-legislators must take this new, mobilised order into account as the simplification review gets underway. A report from the EU Commission is expected in April.

Go back to the main page Sign up for Forest Watch

Image: Alf Ribeiro/Shutterstock

Kategorien: News, Forest Watch, Partner Voices, EU-Mercosur Free Trade Agreement, EU Regulation on deforestation-free products, Brazil