REPORT on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the EU-Mercosur Interim Trade Agreement for agricultural products

8.12.2025 - (COM(2025)0639 – C10‑0247/2025 – 2025/0322(COD)) - ***I

Committee on International Trade
Rapporteur: Gabriel Mato

Amendments

• 001-017 (PDF - 120 KB)
• 001-017 (DOC - 33 KB)
• 018-027 (PDF - 123 KB)
• 018-027 (DOC - 31 KB)
• 028-033 (PDF - 116 KB)
• 028-033 (DOC - 30 KB)
• 034-038 (PDF - 113 KB)
• 034-038 (DOC - 29 KB)
• 039-045 (PDF - 121 KB)
• 039-045 (DOC - 30 KB)
• 046-051 (PDF - 114 KB)
• 046-051 (DOC - 29 KB)
• 052-060 (PDF - 135 KB)
• 052-060 (DOC - 32 KB)
• 061-068 (PDF - 133 KB)
• 061-068 (DOC - 32 KB)
• 069-071 (PDF - 106 KB)
• 069-071 (DOC - 29 KB)
• 072-077 (PDF - 131 KB)
• 072-077 (DOC - 32 KB)
• 078-079 (PDF - 97 KB)
• 078-079 (DOC - 40 KB)
• 080-080 (PDF - 113 KB)
• 080-080 (DOC - 29 KB)
• 081-088 (PDF - 132 KB)
• 081-088 (DOC - 31 KB)
• 089-089 (PDF - 184 KB)
• 089-089 (DOC - 72 KB)
• 090-090 (PDF - 108 KB)
• 090-090 (DOC - 71 KB)
• 091-091 (PDF - 110 KB)
• 091-091 (DOC - 29 KB)
• 092-100 (PDF - 124 KB)
• 092-100 (DOC - 31 KB)
• 101-108 (PDF - 125 KB)
• 101-108 (DOC - 31 KB)
• 109-110 (PDF - 103 KB)
• 109-110 (DOC - 28 KB)
• 111-112 (PDF - 114 KB)
• 111-112 (DOC - 29 KB)
• 113-113 (PDF - 109 KB)
• 113-113 (DOC - 29 KB)

DRAFT EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LEGISLATIVE RESOLUTION

on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the EU-Mercosur Interim Trade Agreement for agricultural products

(COM(2025)0639 – C10‑0247/2025 – 2025/0322(COD))

(Ordinary legislative procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

– having regard to the Commission proposal to Parliament and the Council (COM(2025)0639),

– having regard to Article 294(2) and Article 207(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C10‑0247/2025),

– having regard to Article 294(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

– having regard to Rule 60 of its Rules of Procedure,

– having regard to the report of the Committee on International Trade (A10-0254/2025),

1. Adopts its position at first reading hereinafter set out;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it replaces, substantially amends or intends to substantially amend its proposal;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council, the Commission and the national parliaments.

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Recital 12

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(12) The close monitoring of any sensitive products should facilitate timely decisions concerning the possible initiation of investigations and the subsequent imposition of safeguard measures. Therefore, the Commission should regularly monitor imports of any sensitive products from the date of entry into force of the ITA or the EMPA. Monitoring should be extended to other products or sectors if the relevant Union industry makes a duly justified request to the Commission.	(12) The close monitoring of any sensitive products should facilitate timely decisions concerning the possible initiation of investigations and the subsequent imposition of safeguard measures. Therefore, the Commission should constantly and proactively monitor imports of any sensitive products from the date of entry into force of the ITA or the EMPA. Monitoring should be extended to other products or sectors if the relevant Union industry makes a duly justified request to the Commission. The Commission should present a monitoring report every three months, containing its assessment of the impact of imports of sensitive products benefitting from preferential market access under the Agreement, including data on import volumes and prices for all sensitive products, with appropriate regional disaggregation.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Article 3 – paragraph 2 – point c a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(c a) the introduction of a reciprocity obligation regarding products and production standards

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 1

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. The Commission shall regularly monitor the Union market of sensitive products, in particular as regards import and export trends, production and price developments. For that purpose, the Commission shall cooperate and exchange data with Member States and the Union industry on a regular basis.	1. The Commission shall constantly and proactively monitor the Union market of sensitive products, in particular as regards import and export trends, production and price developments, with the support of the Union market observatories established by Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council1. For that purpose, the Commission shall cooperate and exchange data with Member States, the European Parliament and the Union industry on a regular basis.
	1 Regulation (EU) No 1308/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 December 2013 establishing a common organisation of the markets in agricultural products and repealing Council Regulations (EEC) No 922/72, (EEC) No 234/79, (EC) No 1037/2001 and (EC) No 1234/2007 (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/reg/2013/1308/oj).

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2 a. Upon a duly justified request by the Union industry concerned, the Commission may extend the scope of the monitoring referred to in paragraph 1 to any products or sectors other than those referred to in the Annex.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2 b (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2 b. Cooperation and exchange of data shall be carried out both vertically, between the Commission and the Member States, and horizontally, between the Member States.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2 c (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2c. By 1 March 2026, the Commission shall develop and make available to Member States technical guidelines on the indicators, parameters and types of data that can be monitored in markets at national and local level.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The Commission shall present a monitoring report to the European Parliament and to the Council every six months containing its assessment of the impact of imports of sensitive products benefitting from preferential market access under the agreement. Such reports shall cover the Union market and, if relevant, also cover the situation in one or several Member States.	3. The Commission shall present a monitoring report to the European Parliament and to the Council every three months containing its assessment of the impact of imports of sensitive products benefitting from preferential market access under the Agreement. That report shall cover the Union market and, if relevant, also cover the specific situation in one or several Member States.

Amendment  8

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, an increase in volume of more than 10% year-on-year, as a rule, of the imports under preferential terms of a given product from a country concerned as prima facie evidence of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to Union industry, if, at the same time, the average import price for those imports from a country concerned is at least 10%, as a rule, below the relevant average domestic price of like or directly competitive products during the same period, based on available data.	3. The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, an increase in volume of more than 5 % compared to the three-year average as a rule, of the imports under preferential terms of a given product from a country concerned as prima facie evidence of serious injury, or the threat of serious injury to the Union industry, if, at the same time, the average import price for those imports from a country concerned is at least 5 %, as a rule, below the relevant average domestic price of like or directly competitive products during the same period, based on available data.

Amendment  9

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, a decrease of more than 10% year-on-year, as a rule, in the average import price of a given product from a country concerned imported into the Union on preferential terms as prima facie evidence of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to Union industry, if at the same time the average import price for that product from a country concerned is at least 10%, as a rule, below the relevant average domestic price of like or directly competitive products during the same period, based on available data.	4. The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, a decrease of more than 5 % compared to the three-year average, as a rule, in the average import price of a given product from a country concerned imported into the Union on preferential terms as prima facie evidence of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to the Union industry, if at the same time the average import price for that product from a country concerned is at least 5 %, as a rule, below the relevant average domestic price of like or directly competitive products during the same period, based on available data.

Amendment  10

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 4 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	4a. The Commission shall not be limited to the quantitative thresholds set out in this Article when establishing prima facie evidence of serious injury. Clear indications of a deterioration in the economic situation of the industry, across the Union or at Member State level, including sustained decreases in domestic prices, may be sufficient to demonstrate injury to the sector and may warrant the initiation of an investigation.

Amendment  11

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. Where possible, the investigation shall be concluded within six months from the date on which the notice of initiation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union. That time limit may be extended by a further period of three months in exceptional circumstances, such as the involvement of an unusually high number of interested parties or complex market situations. The Commission shall notify all interested parties of any such extensions and explain the reasons therefor. Where an investigation concerns sensitive products, the Commission shall conclude it as soon as possible, with the aim of taking a final decision within four months from the date on which the notice of initiation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.	3. Where possible, the investigation shall be concluded within three months from the date on which the notice of initiation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union. That time limit may be extended by a further period of three months in exceptional circumstances such as the involvement of an unusually high number of interested parties or complex market situations. The Commission shall notify all interested parties of any such extensions and explain the reasons therefor. Where an investigation concerns sensitive products, the Commission shall conclude it as soon as possible, with the aim of taking a final decision within two months from the date on which the notice of initiation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Amendment  12

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
5. The Commission shall evaluate all relevant factors of an objective and quantifiable nature that affect the situation of the Union industry, in particular the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by the increased imports, and changes regarding the Union industry with respect to the level of sales, production, productivity, capacity utilisation, profits and losses, and employment. This list is not exhaustive, and the Commission may take other relevant factors into consideration for its determination of the existence of serious injury or threat of serious injury, such as stocks, prices, return of capital employed, cash flow, the level of market shares, and other factors which are causing or may have caused serious injury, or threaten to cause serious injury to the Union industry.	5. The Commission shall evaluate all relevant economic indicators and factors of an objective and quantifiable nature that affect the situation of the Union industry, in particular the rate and amount of the increase in imports of the product concerned in absolute and relative terms, the share of the domestic market taken by the increased imports, and changes regarding the Union industry with respect to the level of sales, including prices, production, productivity, capacity utilisation, profits and losses, and employment. This list is not exhaustive, and the Commission may take other relevant factors into consideration for its determination of the existence of serious injury or threat of serious injury, such as stocks, return of capital employed, cash flow, the level of market shares, and other factors which are causing or may have caused serious injury, or threaten to cause serious injury to the Union industry.

Amendment  13

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. In case of sensitive products, provisional safeguard measures shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 18(4) without delay and in any event within a maximum of 21 days from the initiation of the investigation to avert damage to Union industry which would be difficult to repair, including where such damage may be geographically concentrated in one or several Member States.	3. In case of sensitive products, provisional safeguard measures shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 18(4) without delay and in any event within a maximum of 14 days from the initiation of the investigation to avert damage to the Union industry which would be difficult to repair, including where such damage may be geographically concentrated in one or several Member States.

Amendment  14

Proposal for a regulation

Article 15 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	Article15a
	Anti-circumvention measures
	1. If the Commission identifies circumvention of safeguard measures through changes in trade routes, including imports from Parties exempted from the measure, it may extend the scope of the measure to these imports or adopt other necessary implementing measures.
	2. The Commission shall strengthen customs cooperation with Member States in verifying rules of origin and ensuring full traceability of imports of sensitive products.

Amendment  15

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 14

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
14. Eggs	14. Eggs class A and B

Amendment  16

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 15

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
15. Egg albumins	15. Eggs products- whole egg powder, yolk egg powder, egg albumins (standard, high whip, high gel)

Amendment  17

Proposal for a regulation

Annex I – paragraph 1 – point 23 a (new)

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	23 a. Citrus: oranges, lemons and mandarines

 

EXPLANATORY STATEMENT

This proposal for a Regulation implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the Interim Trade Agreement for agricultural products constitutes a key instrument to ensure that trade liberalisation is accompanied by effective protection mechanisms for the Union’s most sensitive agricultural sectors. It strengthens the EU’s ability to react swiftly, proportionately and with legal certainty when imports from Mercosur countries cause, or threaten to cause, serious injury to EU producers.

European farmers have consistently expressed concerns about the potential impact of the agreement on agricultural markets. The safeguard mechanism proposed by the Commission responds adequately to these concerns. It establishes clear procedures, strict timelines, objective criteria and a robust operational framework that together ensure market stability and provide credible protection against sudden disturbances.

The Rapporteur considers that the Commission proposal strikes the appropriate balance between legal certainty, operational effectiveness and proportionality. The mechanism is consistent with established EU practice in other trade agreements and offers a reliable safeguard in a context where the confidence of the agricultural sector is essential for the overall acceptance of the EU-Mercosur Agreement.

This Regulation is not merely a technical exercise. It reflects the Union’s broader commitment to protecting its agricultural production, ensuring market stability, maintaining the competitiveness of its farmers and providing solid guarantees against potential market disruptions arising from trade liberalisation. Its timely adoption is therefore both necessary and strategically important.

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

Pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure, the rapporteur declares that he included in his report input on matters pertaining to the subject of the file that he received, in the preparation of the report, prior to the adoption thereof in committee, from the following interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register[1], or from the following representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies:

1. Interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register

Agricultural organisations and stakeholders

Representatives of farming interests affected by EU-Mercosur trade flows

2. Representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies

Embassies and Permanent Missions of Mercosur partner countries to the EU (technical exchanges)

The list above is drawn up under the exclusive responsibility of the rapporteur.

Where natural persons are identified in the list by their name, by their function or by both, the rapporteur declares that he has submitted to the natural persons concerned the European Parliament's Data Protection Notice No 484 (https://www.europarl.europa.eu/data-protect/index.do), which sets out the conditions applicable to the processing of their personal data and the rights linked to that processing.

 

 

8.12.2025

 

 

MINORITY POSITION

 

pursuant to Rule 56(4) of the Rules of Procedure

Manon Aubry, Luke Ming Flanagan, Marina Mesure

 

 

The bilateral agricultural safeguard proposed under the EU–Mercosur Agreement cannot address the structural problems the treaty creates and is, by design, almost impossible to activate. There is no automatic trigger, and the thresholds to open an investigation are so high that the mechanism remains symbolic. Crucially, the elements that make this safeguard weak and ineffective are embedded directly in the Agreement and cannot be modified by Parliament.

 

Even if activated, the clause would offer only short-lived tariff adjustments. It cannot suspend imports or introduce new quotas, and its effects would remain strictly time-limited: the safeguard may apply for a maximum of twelve years, while the Agreement itself will bind the Union indefinitely.

 

Such limited measures cannot counter the asymmetries created by rising imports of beef, poultry, sugar, maize and ethanol produced in Mercosur at far lower costs and under weaker environmental, social and sanitary requirements. Market destabilisation is cumulative and permanent: additional imports depress prices year after year, eroding farmers’ margins.

 

Europe has already lost millions of farms driven partly by similar trade pressures. A temporary and restrictive safeguard cannot reverse this structural decline and therefore fails to provide credible protection for European agriculture under the Mercosur Agreement.

LETTER OF THE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT (2.12.2025)

Mr Bernd Lange

Chair

Committee on International Trade

BRUSSELS

Subject: Opinion on the Proposal for a Regulation implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the EU-Mercosur Interim Trade Agreement for agricultural products (COM(2025)0639 – C10‑0247/2025 – 2025/0322(COD))

 

 

Dear Chair,

 

Under the procedure referred to above, the Committee on Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI Committee) has been asked to submit an opinion to your committee on the proposal for a Regulation. By written procedure launched on 24 November 2025, the AGRI coordinators decided, as there were no other possibilities to meet the very tight deadline, to send the opinion in the form of a letter. While fully respecting the outcome of the competence discussions settled by the CoP, AGRI Committee nevertheless notes that the decision was taken entirely in favour of the Committee on International Trade (INTA) and that, in this context, AGRI was requested to issue its opinion on a proposal that has a clear agricultural dimension.

 

The AGRI Committee discussed the matter at its meeting of 1 December and subsequently adopted the opinion on 2 December 2025 and asks the INTA Committee, as the responsible committee, to take the following points into account when preparing its report on the proposed Regulation, without assuming competence over an issue that directly concerns the future of European farmers. The AGRI Committee also wishes to express its concern regarding the accelerated handling of this file, which places considerable pressure on Parliament’s normal procedures and did not allow AGRI Committee to consider or vote on an opinion under rule 57 of the Rules of Procedure.

 

 

 

 

The AGRI Committee:

 

1. Stresses that the European agricultural sector stands to be disproportionately affected by the EU-Mercosur Agreement (Agreement);  shares concerns expressed by European farmers and wider society about negative repercussions in the EU market, arising from increased imports from Mercosur countries, in particular for sensitive agricultural sectors such as beef, pork, poultry, sugar, maize, honey and certain fruits; stresses that significant differences in production costs, stemming from lower environmental, animal welfare and labour standards in Mercosur countries, create unfair competitive pressure for EU producers operating under higher cost base and standards and more ambitious rules;

 

2. Underlines that the Commission anticipates a significant impact on EU agriculture, as demonstrated by its proposal for a EUR 1 billion support fund for farmers affected by tariff reductions; expects the Commission to ensure additional resources to supplement the support fund where necessary; stresses the need for a fully operational, enforceable and timely safeguard mechanism before entry into force of the Interim Agreement;

 

3. Underscores that the effects of the surge in agricultural imports from Mercosur countries will generate asymmetric effects across the Union, disproportionately impacting Member States with structural vulnerabilities such as smaller or less productive farm sizes, weaker bargaining power within food supply chains, high rural employment dependence on agriculture and limited administrative capacity to implement rapid support measures;

 

4. Notes with serious concern that the proposed safeguard mechanisms lack automatic triggering, have volume-based triggers set too high, provide insufficient monitoring detail and rely on lengthy investigative procedures ill-suited to the agricultural sector; is also concerned that the onerous criteria set out in Article 3, including the requirement to demonstrate detailed market trends over 36 months, may discourage legitimate investigation requests; highlights the weakness of the proposed safeguards, and questions their credibility and enforceability given the difficulty of their effective implementation and monitoring;

 

5. Regrets that the proposal restricts safeguard measures to tariff suspension or reintroduction; notes that in cases of acute or structural market disruption the Union should, where strictly necessary and proportionate, be able to temporarily suspend preferential imports of specific products;

 

6. Expresses concern that reference prices used as benchmarks in sensitive sectors such as beef are outdated; calls for their systematic revision and regular adjustment to reflect current market conditions if they are to serve as credible triggers for safeguard action;

 

7. Insists on the inclusion of a clear reciprocity clause making explicit that safeguard measures may be applied or maintained where imports benefiting from preferential treatment do not comply with equivalent on-farm production, animal welfare and sanitary and phytosanitary standards; notes that without such a clause, the safeguard regime cannot ensure a genuine level playing field;

 

8. Emphasises the ongoing risk of environmental and social dumping, including the use of pesticides, antibiotics as well as other products or production methods banned or tightly restricted in the EU, persistent deforestation, and structural labour-rights deficiencies; stresses that this disparity threatens EU food sovereignty, a central pillar of the EU’s strategic autonomy, and the credibility of EU trade policy; warns  that limited traceability and insufficiently transparent supply-chain information undermine the ability of EU authorities to verify compliance, potentially allowing prohibited production methods to enter the market undetected, thereby undermining consumer confidence and fair competition;

 

9. Urges the Commission to carry out frequent unannounced inspections in Mercosur countries in order to verify the use of prohibited substances, preventing deforestation-linked imports, and ensuring full traceability of products entering the Union market; requests that findings be included in the annual report on safeguard implementation;

 

10. Highlights farmers’ and consumers’ concerns regarding ineffective and insufficient border controls and inadequate traceability of imported agricultural products, particularly beef and poultry, which limits the EU’s ability to verify their safety, origin, deforestation-free production, and conformity with applicable sanitary and sustainability requirements;

 

11. Underlines that biannual monitoring, as proposed, is insufficient for highly volatile and regionally differentiated agricultural markets; calls for at least quarterly monitoring and publication of import volumes and price data for all sensitive products, with adequate regional disaggregation to detect geographically concentrated effects;

 

12. Is concerned that exemptions granted to Paraguay could incentivise trade re-routing and circumvention of the Regulation; calls therefore for the introduction of a specific anti-circumvention article, strengthened customs cooperation, robust verification of rules of origin and full traceability of imports to prevent the channelling of products via Paraguay;

 

13. Warns that the cumulative impact of increased imports, insufficiently effective non-automatic safeguards, and limited sustainability requirements may undermine EU food security, market resilience,  generational renewal and the socio-economic cohesion of rural areas, worsening the already declining number of livestock in the Union and resulting in further farm closures, job losses and long-term decline in the agricultural capacity within the Union, thereby running counter to the Union’s stated objectives on food sovereignty;

 

14. Underlines that uncertainty surrounding the functioning of the safeguard mechanism, combined with unclear threshold operationalisation and legal ambiguities, raises serious concerns about its effectiveness and its ability to counteract the negative effects of increased imports from the Mercosur bloc; stresses that such concerns are compounded by the fact that these clauses appear insufficient, inconsistent and potentially impracticable;

 

15. Notes, that given the perishability and seasonality of agricultural products, procedural timelines are critical; considers that investigations lasting up to nine months are incompatible with the need to prevent lasting damage to farming communities; calls for a maximum investigation period of three months for sensitive products, and for the Commission to be required to initiate an investigation within 15 days of a trigger event;

 

16. Highlights that existing and future EU support measures are deemed insufficient to alleviate persistent structural challenges or compensate for recurring market disruptions that may stem from the Agreement; calls on the Commission to reinforce EU financial instruments and ensure timely, accessible compensation;

 

17. Calls on the Commission to establish clearer economic indicators to assess “serious injury”, as current criteria lack precision;

 

18. Notes that safeguards alone are insufficient to address the competitive pressures arising from the Agreement, highlights the need to strengthen internal market-stabilization and crisis-management instruments, including the agricultural reserve, sector-specific safety nets and targeted support measures for the most affected small and medium-sized farms and vulnerable rural regions; stresses that those instruments should operate on an autonomous basis and remain independent from the general EU budget so as to ensure their function as predictable and clearly identifiable  safety nets;

 

19. Urges the Commission to halve the thresholds for demonstrating prima facie evidence of serious injury by reducing required increases in import volumes and decreases in import prices, while also removing the obligation to compare import and domestic prices;

 

20. Calls on strengthening the proposed Regulation by extending the transition period, introducing an automatic activation mechanism, significantly lowering the safeguard activation thresholds, decoupling the cumulative trigger of requiring both import increases and simultaneous price decreases, and allowing for market disturbances themselves to constitute grounds for triggering the mechanism; further calls for halving the investigation timelines, simplifying the criteria for initiating an investigation; extending the provisional safeguard application period, enhancing product-specific monitoring and increasing its frequency to monthly or bi-monthly intervals with clear regional breakdowns, improving traceability requirements, and ensuring that any sustainability-related non-compliance can trigger immediate and proportionate remedial measures; underlines that monitoring must be supported by robust border checks conducted pursuant to Articles 47 to 54 of Regulation (EU) 2017/625 of the European Parliament and of the Council;

 

21. Calls for a greater involvement of regions in preparing monitoring reports and for systematic information to the European Parliament on all investigations and corrective measures;

 

22. Welcomes that any Member State, association or representative of the Union industry may request initiation or extension of safeguard measures, provided evidence is available;

 

23. Reminds that Member States may lack the necessary administrative capacity to effectively monitor local market disturbances and to provide the detailed evidence required for the Commission to trigger a safeguard clause or to open an investigation; considers therefore that, cooperation and data exchange should be strengthened not only between the Commission and the Member States, but also horizontally, among Member States themselves, in particular to address cross-border market disturbances and to ensure a more consistent and timely detection of risks;

 

24. Reiterates its support for an ambitious and rules-based trade policy, but stresses that such policy must be coherent with aims of other EU policies - particularly the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and environmental policy - that protect the Union’s agricultural interests, and ensure a level playing field for European farmers and rural communities; acknowledges the opportunities offered by the Agreement for some sectors of the European economy; underlines nonetheless that trade policy must safeguard the Union’s food security and must not undermine the objectives set out in Article 39 Treaty on Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) nor compromise the integrity of the internal market under Articles 114 and 169 TFEU; 

 

25. Encourages the Commission to move towards the creation of a European Import Control Office, which would help to coordinate and standardise inspection capacities, data exchange and risk-based approaches across the Union.

 

Yours sincerely,

 

 

 

Veronika VRECIONOVÁ

 

 

 

 

ANNEX 1: AGRI Amendments to the Regulation

ANNEX 2: Declaration of input

ANNEX 1  

AGRI Amendments to the proposal for a Regulation implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the EU-Mercosur Interim Trade Agreement for agricultural products

Amendment  1

Proposal for a regulation

Article 4 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. The Commission shall rapidly assess the market situation based on the monitoring referred to in paragraph 1, by linking a possible increase in imports for the relevant sensitive products with the evolution of production and/or consumption, price and market share on the Union market, as well as exports from the Union.	2. The Commission shall rapidly assess the market situation based on the monitoring referred to in paragraph 1, by linking a possible increase in imports for the relevant sensitive products with the evolution of production and/or consumption, price and market share on the Union market. In case such a link cannot be established, the reasonable indication based on objective, factual and verifiable information that the surge in imports for the relevant sensitive products is likely to create a serious injury or a threat of serious injury will trigger the assessment by the Commission.

Amendment  2

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, an increase in volume of more than 10% year-on-year, as a rule, of the imports under preferential terms of a given product from a country concerned as prima facie evidence of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to Union industry, if, at the same time, the average import price for those imports from a country concerned is at least 10%, as a rule, below the relevant average domestic price of like or directly competitive products during the same period, based on available data.	3. The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, an increase in volume of more than 5% of the average of previous 3 years, as a rule, of the imports under preferential terms of a given product from a country concerned as prima facie evidence of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to Union industry.

Amendment  3

Proposal for a regulation

Article 6 – paragraph 4

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, a decrease of more than 10% year-on-year, as a rule, in the average import price of a given product from a country concerned imported into the Union on preferential terms as prima facie evidence of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to Union industry, if at the same time the average import price for that product from a country concerned is at least 10%, as a rule, below the relevant average domestic price of like or directly competitive products during the same period, based on available data.	4. The Commission shall treat, in the absence of contrary indications, a decrease of more than 5% of the average of previous 3 years, as a rule, in the average import price of a given product from a country concerned imported into the Union on preferential terms as prima facie evidence of serious injury or the threat of serious injury to Union industry.

Amendment  4

Proposal for a regulation

Article 7 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. Where possible, the investigation shall be concluded within six months from the date on which the notice of initiation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union. That time limit may be extended by a further period of three months in exceptional circumstances, such as the involvement of an unusually high number of interested parties or complex market situations. The Commission shall notify all interested parties of any such extensions and explain the reasons therefor. Where an investigation concerns sensitive products, the Commission shall conclude it as soon as possible, with the aim of taking a final decision within four months from the date on which the notice of initiation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.	3. Where possible, the investigation shall be concluded within three months from the date on which the notice of initiation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union. That time limit may be extended by a further period of three months in exceptional circumstances, such as the involvement of an unusually high number of interested parties or complex market situations. The Commission shall notify all interested parties of any such extensions and explain the reasons therefor. Where an investigation concerns sensitive products, the Commission shall conclude it as soon as possible, with the aim of taking a final decision within two months from the date on which the notice of initiation is published in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Amendment  5

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 3

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. In case of sensitive products, provisional safeguard measures shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 18(4) without delay and in any event within a maximum of 21 days from the initiation of the investigation to avert damage to Union industry which would be difficult to repair, including where such damage may be geographically concentrated in one or several Member States.	3. In case of sensitive products, provisional safeguard measures shall be adopted in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 18(4) without delay and in any event within a maximum of 14 days from the initiation of the investigation to avert damage to Union industry which would be difficult to repair, including where such damage may be geographically concentrated in one or several Member States.

Amendment  6

Proposal for a regulation

Article 9 – paragraph 5

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
5. Provisional safeguard measures shall not apply for more than 200 calendar days.	5. Provisional safeguard measures shall not apply for more than 300 calendar days.

Amendment  7

Proposal for a regulation

Article 12 – paragraph 2

Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
2. The initial duration of a safeguard measure, as referred to in paragraph 1, may be extended by up to two years, provided that the safeguard measure continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury to Union industry and that there is evidence that the Union industry is adjusting. In case of sensitive products, a safeguard measure shall be extended by up to two years, provided that it continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury to Union industry.	2. The initial duration of a safeguard measure, as referred to in paragraph 1, may be extended by up to two years, provided that the safeguard measure continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury to Union industry and that there is evidence that the Union industry is adjusting. In case of sensitive products, a safeguard measure shall be extended by up to six years, provided that it continues to be necessary to prevent or remedy serious injury to Union industry.

 

 

ANNEX: DECLARATION OF INPUT

 

The Chair in her capacity as rapporteur for opinion declares under her exclusive responsibility that she did not include in her opinion input from interest representatives falling within the scope of the Interinstitutional Agreement on a mandatory transparency register[2], or from representatives of public authorities of third countries, including their diplomatic missions and embassies, to be listed in this Annex pursuant to Article 8 of Annex I to the Rules of Procedure.

 

 

 

PROCEDURE – COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

Title	Implementing the bilateral safeguard clause of the EU-Mercosur Partnership Agreement and the EU-Mercosur Interim Trade Agreement for agricultural products
References	COM(2025)0639 – C10-0247/2025 – 2025/0322(COD)
Date submitted to Parliament	8.10.2025
Committee(s) responsible  Date announced in plenary	INTA 24.11.2025
Committees asked for opinions  Date announced in plenary	AGRI 24.11.2025
Rapporteurs  Date appointed	Gabriel Mato 3.11.2025
Discussed in committee	3.11.2025	2.12.2025	8.12.2025
Date adopted	8.12.2025
Result of final vote	+: –: 0:	27 8 7
Members present for the final vote	Manon Aubry, Christophe Bay, Brando Benifei, Anna Bryłka, Udo Bullmann, Benoit Cassart, Enikő Győri, Rihards Kols, Sebastian Kruis, Bernd Lange, Ilia Lazarov, Thierry Mariani, Gabriel Mato, Daniele Polato, Lukas Sieper, Francesco Torselli, Jörgen Warborn, Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
Substitutes present for the final vote	Mika Aaltola, Francisco Assis, Petras Auštrevičius, Dan Barna, Saskia Bricmont, Waldemar Buda, Lina Gálvez, Hana Jalloul Muro, Sandra Kalniete, Cristina Maestre, Vicent Marzà Ibáñez, Marina Mesure, Branislav Ondruš, Lídia Pereira, Jessika Van Leeuwen
Members under Rule 216(7) present for the final vote	Gilles Boyer, Luke Ming Flanagan, Francisco José Millán Mon, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Jan-Christoph Oetjen, Michele Picaro, Carla Tavares, Thomas Waitz
Date tabled	9.12.2025

 

 

FINAL VOTE BY ROLL CALL BY THE COMMITTEE RESPONSIBLE

27	+
ECR	Rihards Kols
NI	Lukas Sieper
PPE	Mika Aaltola, Sandra Kalniete, Ilia Lazarov, Gabriel Mato, Francisco José Millán Mon, Fernando Navarrete Rojas, Lídia Pereira, Jessika Van Leeuwen, Jörgen Warborn, Bogdan Andrzej Zdrojewski, Juan Ignacio Zoido Álvarez
PfE	Sebastian Kruis
Renew	Petras Auštrevičius, Dan Barna, Gilles Boyer, Benoit Cassart, Jan-Christoph Oetjen
S&D	Francisco Assis, Brando Benifei, Udo Bullmann, Lina Gálvez, Hana Jalloul Muro, Bernd Lange, Cristina Maestre, Carla Tavares

 

8	-
NI	Branislav Ondruš
PfE	Christophe Bay, Anna Bryłka, Enikő Győri, Thierry Mariani
The Left	Manon Aubry, Luke Ming Flanagan, Marina Mesure

 

7	0
ECR	Waldemar Buda, Michele Picaro, Daniele Polato, Francesco Torselli
Verts/ALE	Saskia Bricmont, Vicent Marzà Ibáñez, Thomas Waitz

 

Key to symbols:

+ : in favour

- : against

0 : abstention

 

 

• [1] Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 May 2021 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on a mandatory transparency register (OJ L 207, 11.6.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2021/611/oj).
• [2] Interinstitutional Agreement of 20 May 2021 between the European Parliament, the Council of the European Union and the European Commission on a mandatory transparency register (OJ L 207, 11.6.2021, p. 1, ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/agree_interinstit/2021/611/oj).