The suspension of meat imports from Brazil conditions the quantities agreed upon in Mercosur

As of September 2026, the parliamentary processing of the EU–Mercosur Agreement in the Member States is practically blocked in formal terms. The core of the process is currently concentrated in the EU institutions (Council, Commission, and European Parliament) and in the pending opinion of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU); most national parliaments have not yet opened ordinary ratification procedures, although they have set political positions in several countries.

1. Structure of the agreement and ratification requirements

Since January 2026, there are two differentiated texts:

• An Interim Trade Agreement, under the exclusive competence of the EU, whose provisional application can be activated by the European Commission after signature, without waiting for national ratifications, once certain conditions are met (Consilium, 9.1.2026; Commission, 17.1.2026).
• A full Association Agreement, of a “mixed” nature, which does require ratification by the 27 national Parliaments, in addition to prior approval by the European Parliament and a final decision by the Council (Commission, 17.1.2026).

The Council gave the green light to the signing of both texts on January 9, 2026 (Council of the EU) and the signing took place on January 17, 2026 in Asunción (European Commission).

2. Blockage in the European Parliament and effect on national Parliaments

The key step occurred on January 21, 2026, when the European Parliament decided to refer the agreement to the CJEU to rule on its legal basis and division of competences, effectively “freezing” the ratification schedule:

• The European Parliament approved sending the agreement to the CJEU, which suspends parliamentary processing until the Court issues its opinion (Demócrata, “The European Parliament freezes ratification…”).
• Meanwhile, the European Parliament has only advanced on agricultural safeguard rules, approved in December 2025 and February 2026, but has not yet voted on the ratification of the agreement itself (European Parliament, 16.12.2025; 10.2.2026).

As a consequence, the “normal” ratification phase has not yet opened in national Parliaments: the procedure is awaiting the CJEU decision and the European Parliament vote. Therefore, rather than formal procedures country by country, we mainly find political positions and announced voting mandates.

3. Member States that have announced rejection or blockage

Several governments and national Parliaments have sent clear signals of opposition:

• In the Council of the EU, authorization for signing and provisional application passed with a qualified majority, but France, Hungary, Ireland, Poland, and Austria voted against and Belgium abstained (Demócrata, “The EU endorses the signing…”; “Peña receives Von der Leyen…”).
• France has announced it will reject the agreement “due to unanimous rejection in its Parliament,” and the Government has committed to voting against it in European bodies (Demócrata, 8.1.2026).
• Ireland has also publicly stated it will vote against the trade pact, aligning with France, Italy, Hungary, and Poland in opposition, in a context of strong rejection from the agricultural sector (Demócrata, 8.1.2026).
• Hungary and Poland have been cited as potential promoters of actions before the CJEU that could provisionally suspend the application of the agreement once activated (Demócrata, “Asaja Andalucía demands…”).

4. Supportive countries and general situation

Against this core of reluctant countries, a “broad majority” of Member States has supported the signing and provisional application of the trade chapter, according to Council sources cited by Demócrata (119383.0).

Spain, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Portugal appear in the press as main potential beneficiaries of the agreement and their governments have generally been supportive, although in several cases (for example Spain) government support coexists with strong social and agricultural opposition and with parties —such as IU in Spain— explicitly demanding that their national Parliaments do not ratify the text (Demócrata, “IU promotes measures…”).

5. Conclusion: national processing at a very early stage

In summary, as of today:

• Ratification at the EU level is on hold while the CJEU rules and the European Parliament has not voted on the agreement.
• National Parliaments have not yet fully deployed their formal ratification procedures; what exists are mandates or political announcements (France, Ireland, Hungary, Poland, Austria, Belgium abstaining) and preparatory debates.
• Therefore, the “parliamentary processing” in the Member States is at a very preliminary or virtually frozen stage, pending the legal resolution and the European Parliament vote, although the trade chapter may already be applied provisionally at the initiative of the Commission.

The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAPA) is one of the key departments in the control of agri-food imports in Spain, especially regarding veterinary, phytosanitary, and animal feed aspects. These competences are framed within the general structure of ministries established by Royal Decree 139/2020, of January 28, and in sectoral regulations governing official controls and national points of entry.

1. Basic regulatory framework

Although the details of MAPA's internal structure are developed in a specific royal decree of the department itself, the core of its functions in border controls is recognized and specified in subsequent official control regulations. Among the most relevant affecting agri-food import controls are:

• Order PJC/756/2024, of July 22, which “delimits the actions to be carried out in official border control services functionally dependent on the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Ministry of Health” (BOE). This order defines the division of actions between both ministries at border control posts.
• Royal Decree 739/2021, of August 24, on the application of EU legislation on protective measures against plant pests and on “official controls and other official activities in this matter” (BOE). It assigns MAPA a central role in phytosanitary controls.
• Royal Decree 629/2019, of October 31, which regulates the general register of establishments in the animal feed sector and the national points of entry for feed (BOE).
• Various complementary provisions, such as Order APA/660/2020 on health requirements for the import of certain animal species (BOE), which specify requirements and procedures under MAPA's competence.

2. Competences in official border controls

Based on this framework, it can be summarized that MAPA holds, in the control of agri-food imports, functions of:

• Planning and coordination of official controls of veterinary, phytosanitary, and feed nature at national points of entry, in line with European Union legislation and in coordination with the Ministry of Health and autonomous communities.
• Functional management of official border control services within its areas. Order PJC/756/2024 makes clear that there are border services functionally dependent on MAPA, including the organization and supervision of inspections on live animals, products of animal origin, plants, and plant products.
• Determination of consignments subject to specific control and inspection conditions for certain product categories, through orders and implementing resolutions of European legislation.
• Management of national points of entry and related registers for feed and animal nutrition (Royal Decree 629/2019), defining authorization or registration requirements for establishments and operators involved in imports.

3. Veterinary, phytosanitary, and animal feed functions

In the veterinary field, regulations such as Order APA/660/2020 and other provisions on animal health and protection position MAPA as the competent authority to set import requirements for animals when there is no harmonized EU legislation. This translates into:

• Establishing minimum sanitary entry conditions.
• Defining required veterinary documentation (certificates, declarations).
• Determining, in collaboration with Health and Customs, measures to be taken in case of non-compliance (retention, re-export, or destruction of consignments).

In the phytosanitary area, Royal Decree 739/2021 structures the system of official controls against plant pests, assigning MAPA the organization of inspection, sampling activities, and, where appropriate, adoption of emergency measures against quarantine pests in imported goods.

Finally, in animal feed and feedstuffs, Royal Decree 629/2019 recognizes MAPA as responsible for the registration of establishments, points of entry for feed, and coordination of the “National Coordination Commission on Animal Feed,” giving it a reference role in controls on the safety of imported feed.

4. Interministerial and EU coordination

The control of agri-food imports is a shared competence strongly conditioned by European Union law. MAPA:

• Participates in coordination with the Spanish Agency for Food Safety and Nutrition (AESAN) and other ministries, through the Coordination Commission created by Royal Decree 44/2021 (BOE), to ensure coherent application of food regulations.
• Exercises functions of representation and liaison with EU institutions in animal health, plant health, feed, and commercial quality matters, both in legislation development and in its execution and alert management.
• Promotes and coordinates the transposition and internal application of European regulations and directives governing official import controls, especially the “official controls package” on food safety, animal and plant health.

Overall, MAPA's competences combine normative and planning functions with functional management of border control services and coordination with other departments and institutions, ensuring that agri-food products entering Spain meet animal health, plant health, feed safety, and, in general, health protection and agricultural production requirements.

For a third country to export meat to the European Union market, it is not enough that the product is “fit for consumption” according to its internal standards: it must comply with a very demanding framework of European rules on animal health, food safety, and residue control, and be subject to official controls equivalent to those of the EU itself. The Commission and Member States continuously verify that these requirements are met through audits in exporting countries and border controls.

1. Prior approval of the country and establishments

Importing meat from third countries is only possible if two basic filters are met:

• Authorized country: the EU maintains lists of third countries authorized to export food-producing animals and products of animal origin. To be on these lists, the country must demonstrate that its legislation and official control system guarantee a level of protection at least equivalent to that of the EU in animal health, public health, and residues of medicines and pesticides. When Commission audits detect serious deficiencies, this authorization can be reviewed or withdrawn, as seen in the case of Brazilian beef and the use of hormones or certain antimicrobials.
• Authorized establishments: within each authorized country, only slaughterhouses, cutting rooms, and processing plants included in specific lists approved by the EU may export, after verifying that they are supervised by a reliable competent authority and subject to official veterinary inspections.

2. “Equivalent” official control system

The core of the European model is that the exporting country has a robust official control system, not just compliant individual companies. According to Commission information, this implies:

• Having a competent authority (usually the official veterinary service) with legal capacity and means to inspect, sample, and sanction.
• Applying control programs for residues of veterinary medicines, hormones, and pesticides comparable to European ones, with aligned maximum limits and prohibition of substances banned in the EU. Recent audits to Brazil or Paraguay have focused precisely on verifying these controls.
• Ensuring traceability from farm to final product, so that each batch of meat can be tracked and any product from animals treated with prohibited substances excluded from the EU market.
• Having an animal welfare and biosecurity framework that reduces disease risks, including outbreak management (e.g., African swine fever) and application of the regionalization principle to limit restrictions to affected areas.

3. Compliance with hygiene and food safety standards

Besides the “country” approach, imported meat must comply with the same food hygiene rules required of European production. Among other aspects, it is verified that:

• Establishments apply self-control systems based on HACCP (hazard analysis and critical control points) and hygiene standards during slaughter, cutting, storage, and transport.
• Temperatures, shelf life, and freezing and transport conditions required by European legislation are respected.
• The final product is free of unacceptable microbiological contamination and meets EU criteria; EU audit programs include specific controls on salmonella, listeria, or other risks in meat and meat products.

4. Official veterinary certification and border controls

Even when a country and its companies are authorized, each specific shipment of meat undergoes a double verification:

• Official veterinary certificate at origin: issued by the competent authority of the third country, declaring that the meat comes from authorized establishments and meets all EU requirements (animal health, absence of certain diseases, residue limits, thermal treatment requirements when necessary, etc.). For example, in the case of poultry meat from Morocco, only products subjected to treatments that eliminate avian flu risk are allowed.
• Controls at EU border control posts: national authorities carry out documentary, identity, and physical checks (including sampling for laboratory analysis) at entry points. The Commission coordinates and audits these controls and is strengthening their intensity for agri-food imports presenting higher risks.

5. Measures in case of non-compliance

If audits or border controls detect that a third country does not guarantee an equivalent level of protection —for example, due to the use of prohibited hormones or antibiotics reserved for human medicine— the EU can:

• Suspend or restrict the authorization of that country or certain product categories.
• Require corrective measures and re-audit the control system.
• Increase the frequency of physical and sampling controls at the border for shipments from that origin.

In summary, exporting meat to the EU requires that the third country adapt its legislation and practices to European standards and continuously demonstrate that it has a reliable and transparent public sanitary control system, subject to periodic audits by the Commission.