“As the European Union seeks to sign a trade agreement with the South American bloc MERCOSUR, Lithuanian farmers say cheap imports from Latin America will unbalance the market and outcompete Lithuanian products.

 

 

As BNS reported, the agreement would help the European Union export more vehicles, machinery, wines and spirits to South America, while making it easier for South America to access the European market for its meat, sugar, rice, honey and soybeans.”

 

At least 7,000 farmers with about 1,000 tractors staged a protest in Brussels last Thursday to protest the agreement.”

 

Lithuania produces and sells mainly grain, using a lot of chemicals. Is the MERCOSUR agreement detrimental to such a “business” that destroys soil quality?

 

This question touches on the complex balance between international trade, environmental standards and the viability of local agriculture. Here are the main aspects of how the Mercosur agreement could affect the Lithuanian grain sector and its practices:

 

1. Direct competition in the grain sector

Lithuanian agriculture is dominated by crop production, and the main export commodity is wheat. Mercosur countries (especially Brazil and Argentina) are also huge exporters of grain and soybeans.

 

Soybeans vs. Grains: While Lithuania exports wheat and South America mainly exports soybeans and corn, cheap soybeans from Latin America could reduce demand for feed grains in Europe, which would indirectly affect prices for Lithuanian farmers.

Oversupply: The increased total volume of agricultural production on the EU market creates downward pressure on prices, which is most painful for average Lithuanian farms, whose cost price is higher than that of South American mega-farms.

 

2. Use of chemicals and duplicity of standards

Lithuanian farmers often highlight the problem of “double standards”, which is directly related to the aforementioned chemicals:

 

Strict EU requirements: Lithuanian farmers must comply with the EU’s Farm to Fork strategy, which requires a drastic reduction in the use of pesticides and fertilizers.

Mercosur freedom: South America allows the use of active substances (e.g. certain neonicotinoids or glyphosate) that are banned or severely restricted in the EU.

Consequence: If cheaper products grown using chemicals banned in Europe are imported into the EU, Lithuanian farmers become uncompetitive, as their production costs are higher due to regulation.

 

3. Soil quality and intensive farming

The problem of soil quality degradation is based on ecological considerations:

 

The danger of specialization: In order to compete with cheap imports, Lithuanian farmers may further intensify production (use more fertilizers and chemicals) to squeeze out maximum yields and survive at low purchase prices. This creates a vicious circle, where the market forces the land to be depleted.

Impact on “business”: If the Mercosur agreement is signed without strict mirror environmental conditions, the Lithuanian grain production model may become economically unprofitable, as local production will be more expensive than imported products, and the soil will be depleted by attempts to compete.

 

Why are farmers protesting?

Although BNS mentions that even if the EU wins, exporting transport or beverages, this does not bring any benefits to Lithuanian farmers. They see the threat that agriculture will be “sacrificed” for the sake of industrial export interests (German cars or French wine).

 

You can find more information about the progress of the EU-Mercosur negotiations on the official European Commission trade page.

 

It may be a good thing that forests will start to grow again in our fields. Nature will rest from us and recover. If the French and Germans do not keep up with the competition, we will not receive subsidies, most of which we parasitize in our agriculture.

 

This statement reflects the real economic interdependence of the European Union (EU), but the concept of “parasitism” in an economic context is debatable. Here are the main aspects:

 

Germany and France are the main donors. These countries are the largest payers of contributions to the EU budget. If their economies stagnate or lose competitiveness (especially against the US or China), the total EU budget, which finances the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), decreases.

 

Purpose of subsidies. Agricultural subsidies are not simply “benefits”. They are designed to ensure that food prices for consumers remain relatively low, while farmers comply with strict EU environmental and quality standards that increase production costs.

 

The situation in Lithuania. Lithuania is still a “recipient”, and our agriculture is heavily dependent on direct payments. Without them, many farms would become unprofitable, as they would have to compete with cheap production from third countries, where standards are lower.

 

Future developments. In 2025 and beyond, EU discussions increasingly emphasize that subsidies will be linked more to eco-schemes and specific environmental outcomes rather than production volumes. Information on current support measures can be found on the website of the National Paying Agency (NPA).

 

In summary, if the economic engines of the EU (France and Germany) weaken, budget cuts will primarily affect the areas requiring the most spending, i.e. agriculture and cohesion funds. There will be less cohesion. You will have to go to Scandinavia to wash toilets.