The recently established EU-Australia trade agreement has encountered opposition from farmers and Members of the European Parliament (MEPs), who contend that it permits additional imports of sensitive goods beyond those already authorized under the disputed Mercosur deal, without offering full protection for certain EU regional specialties.
Copa-Cogeca, a key farmers’ lobby in the EU, issued a statement Tuesday condemning the concessions granted to Canberra in the new trade deal with Australia as “unacceptable,” noting that they inadequately safeguard European agricultural interests.
ADVERTISEMENT 
ADVERTISEMENT
“Following Mercosur, the accumulated impact of consecutive trade agreements renders these concessions unacceptable,” the lobby declared, adding: “European farmers cannot bear the burden of bilateral trade liberalization without sufficient and genuinely effective protections.”
The EU-Australia accord defines quotas for delicate products such as beef (30,600 tonnes annually phased in over a decade), sheep meat (25,000 tonnes annually phased over seven years), sugar (35,000 tonnes), and rice (8,500 tonnes phased over five years).
Nonetheless, Copa-Cogeca pointed out that these quotas are in addition to those already granted to the Mercosur bloc — Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, and Paraguay — which includes 99,000 tonnes of beef and existing sugar quotas with Brazil and Paraguay.
The European Commission incorporated a safeguard clause permitting both the EU and Australia to apply temporary measures within the initial seven years if a sudden surge in imports triggers serious market disturbances in either entity.
However, the lobby criticized these measures as little more than “communication tools,” with a representative explaining to Euronews that “their activation would likely be slow in the event of a market crisis.”
Some MEPs have already expressed worries
Before the deal can be ratified, it must pass scrutiny from EU member states and MEPs, some of whom have previously contested the legality of the Mercosur agreement at the EU Court of Justice, consequently delaying its approval.
A number of legislators have voiced opposition to the Australia agreement.
“This morning brought a harsh surprise upon learning that, once again, Ursula von der Leyen proceeded unilaterally in the trade deal with Australia,” noted Belgian farmer and liberal MEP Benoît Cassart, adding: “We are poised to face increased imports in sensitive sectors such as beef and sugar, despite already raising concerns over similar issues in the Mercosur case.”
Concerns were also raised regarding the protection of regional food names with geographical significance.
The EU safeguards “Geographical Indications” (GIs) for food and beverage products linked to their origins.
Within this trade deal, 165 EU agricultural food GIs and 231 EU spirit drink GIs receive protection.
However, Australian producers who have used cheese names like the Greek “Feta” and French “Gruyère” in good faith and continuously for at least five years prior to the agreement will retain the right to use these names.
Cassart warned these products could be “placed at risk.”
Meanwhile, Italy’s “Prosecco” wine sparked strong reactions from Italian parliamentarians.
An EU official clarified that under the agreement, Australian producers are permitted to continue using “Prosecco” to identify a grey grape variety in Australia, provided it is solely used as a varietal name and linked to Australian geographical indications. This provision applies only within Australia, which has also committed to cease exports of such wines after ten years.
Yet, Italian Five Star MEP Carolina Morace criticized this, stating that “with this decision, the European Commission effectively legalizes ‘Italian sounding’ products—that is, imitations of Italy’s agri-food excellence worldwide.”
“As a native of Veneto, I cannot accept this latest blow to our traditions, which undermines rather than supports Italy’s wine industry.”