Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič, in a written answer on 22 June 2026, defended the provisional application of the EU-Mercosur trade agreement and rejected calls for a new comprehensive macroeconomic assessment, while detailing the scope of an import control task force and the funding of a EUR 6.3 billion agricultural crisis reserve.
The answer responds to a question from Piotr Müller (ECR, Poland), who had raised concerns about food safety, hidden budget costs, and the agreement's impact on EU agriculture. The Commission's reply clarifies three key points.
On sanitary and phytosanitary controls, Šefčovič stated that the newly created Import Control Task Force will not replace Member State controls but will coordinate existing expert groups on veterinary imports, food and feed of non-animal origin, plant health, e-commerce, and official controls. Its aim is to improve harmonised implementation and identify gaps.
Regarding the EUR 6.3 billion crisis reserve for farmers under the 2028-2034 CAP budget, the Commissioner confirmed it will be a dedicated tool within the EU Facility, replacing the current agricultural reserve with double the budget. He stressed that funding is integrated into the next Multiannual Financial Framework and will not be redeployed from other EU priorities.
On the request for a new macroeconomic assessment, Šefčovič pointed to the Commission's June 2025 analysis of the negotiated outcome, which covers GDP, trade flows, employment, and sectoral effects, including agriculture. He stated that no further comprehensive assessment is planned specifically for the provisional application phase, and that existing analysis plus ongoing monitoring will inform stakeholders.
The answer signals the Commission's intention to proceed with the agreement's provisional application despite the European Parliament having suspended final approval and referred the deal to the Court of Justice. The Commission's stance prioritises trade liberalisation and market access over calls for additional impact studies, drawing a cleavage between economic integration and agricultural protectionism. The response offers concrete institutional mechanisms (the task force and the crisis reserve) but avoids new numerical targets or deadlines beyond those already set.