The green transition as a catalyst for policy reform: The impact of the European Green Deal on trade policy in MERCOSUR countries

Download article
Article

The green transition as a catalyst for policy reform: The impact of the European Green Deal on trade policy in MERCOSUR countries

Mariia Dykha, Valerii Dykha

Received 09.02.2026, Revised 15.05.2026, Accepted 19.06.2026

https://doi.org/10.67524/verus1/1.2026.5

Retrieved from Vol. 2, No. 1, 2026

Pages 53-67

Abstract

This study aimed to identify the specific features of the institutional and regulatory changes that took place in Argentina, Brazil, Paraguay and Uruguay as a response to the European Union’s greening of its market-access conditions, considering the countries’ own adaptation mechanisms, the interregional agreements and the multilateral trade-law context. The study used structural-functional analysis, comparative analysis, documentary analysis, comparative-legal analysis and formal-legal analysis. Its findings indicate that the European Green Deal has extended its environmental and climate requirements to the conditions governing access to the European Union market, since deforestation requirements connect market access with traceability and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism does the same in relation to emissions accounting and verification. In Argentina, traceability and certification are being introduced to meet the demands of deforestation; in Brazil, agricultural data is being integrated; in Paraguay, digital traceability is being implemented, and in Uruguay, product verification is being carried out. Nevertheless, national carbon-policy mechanisms are being developed as well, even though no direct documented link has been found between these mechanisms and the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism. In Argentina and Brazil, debate centres on the trade consequences of the requirements, the costs of complying with them, and the recognition of national control systems. The negotiations carried out between 2023 and 2024, along with the legal formalisation of the agreements in 2026, clarified the climate provisions, the commitments relating to deforestation, and the position taken with regard to the Paris Agreement. The treaty obligations, the European Union’s autonomous rules and the rules of multilateral trade law together constitute a multi-layered trade-law architecture. The greater the structure of exports, the more important traceability becomes, whereas alternative markets reduce the uniformity of the regulatory impact. It is therefore concluded that the European Green Deal functions as an external regulatory stimulus causing institutional adaptation, and the way this adaptation is manifested at the national level should be examined in view of the institutional and sectoral context, the export structure and the role of the European market. The importance of the findings is that they can be made use of by public authorities and participants in foreign trade in the European Union partner countries when improving the mechanisms, they have for meeting the environmental and carbon requirements of the European market and for drawing up their negotiating stances on market-access conditions

References
  1. Barzola, M.V. (2025). Impact of the European Union Deforestation-Free Regulation (EUDR) on Argentine agro-industrial exports. Journal of Research from the Department of Economic Sciences, 16(33), 23-52. doi: 10.54789/rince.33.3.
  2. Bastos Lima, M.G., & Schilling-Vacaflor, A. (2024). Supply chain divergence challenges a “Brussels effect” from Europe's human rights and environmental due diligence laws. Global Policy, 15(2), 260-275. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.13326.
  3. Beaufils, T., Ward, H., Jakob, M., & Wenz, L. (2023). Assessing different European carbon border adjustment mechanism implementations and their impact on trade partners. Communications Earth & Environment, 4, article number 131. doi: 10.1038/s43247-023-00788-4.
  4. Bertram, C., & Van Coppenolle, H. (2024). Strengthening the Paris Agreement through trade? The potential and limitations of EU preferential trade agreements for climate governance. International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics, 24(4), 589-610. doi: 10.1007/s10784-024-09653-x.
  5. Böhringer, C., Fischer, C., Rosendahl, K.E., & Rutherford, T.F. (2022). Potential impacts and challenges of border carbon adjustments. Nature Climate Change, 12, 22-29. doi: 10.1038/s41558-021-01250-z.
  6. Cesar de Oliveira, S.E., Nakagawa, L., Lopes, G.R., Visentin, J.C., Couto, M., Silva, D.E., d’Albertas, F., Pavani, B.F., Loyola, R., & West, C. (2024). The European Union and United Kingdom’s deforestation-free supply chains regulations: Implications for Brazil. Ecological Economics, 217, article number 108053. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2023.108053.
  7. Chen, Z.-Y., Zhao, L.-T., Cheng, L., & Qiu, R.-X. (2025). How does China respond to the Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism? An approach of global trade analysis. Energy Policy, 198, article number 114486. doi: 10.1016/j.enpol.2024.114486.
  8. Cossio, F. (2023). Argentina and “global south” countries submit joint note to the European Union regarding the regulation on deforestation-free products. Retrieved from https://eceur.cancilleria.gob.ar/en/argentina-and-global-south-countries-submit-joint-note-european-union-regarding-regulation.
  9. da Silva Hyldmo, H., Rye, S.A., & Vela-Almeida, D. (2024). A globally just and inclusive transition? Questioning policy representations of the European Green Deal. Global Environmental Change, 89, article number 102946. doi: 10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2024.102946.
  10. Dürr, J., Dietz, T., & Börner, J. (2026). Telecoupling of governance systems under the EU deforestation regulation: Scenarios for the Brazilian beef and soy value chains. Forest Policy and Economics, 185, article number 103725. doi: 10.1016/j.forpol.2026.103725.
  11. Dykha, V., Dykha, M., Lukianova, V., Polozova, V. & Ivanov, M. (2024). Energy security management in the context of current challenges and international experience. Energy Policy Journal, 27(4), 133-154. doi: 10.33223/epj/190485.
  12. Eicke, L., Weko, S., Apergi, M., & Marian, A. (2021). Pulling up the carbon ladder? Decarbonization, dependence, and third-country risks from the European carbon border adjustment mechanism. Energy Research & Social Science, 80, article number 102240. doi: 10.1016/j.erss.2021.102240.
  13. European Commission. (2021). Trade policy review: An open, sustainable and assertive trade policy. Brussels: European Commission.
  14. European Commission. (2022). The power of trade partnerships: Together for green and just economic growth. Brussels: European Commission.
  15. European Commission. (2026). EU-Mercosur: Text of the agreement. Retrieved from https://policy.trade.ec.europa.eu/eu-trade-relationships-country-and-region/countries-and-regions/mercosur/eu-mercosur-agreement/text-agreement_en.
  16. European Green Deal. (2019). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN-DE/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A52019DC0640.
  17. Eurostat. (2025). EU-Mercosur trade up substantially in the last decade. Retrieved from https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/fr/web/products-eurostat-news/w/ddn-20250620-3.
  18. Garcia, M. (2025). Implementation of trade and sustainable development chapters in EU free trade agreements: Promoting environmental reforms? Journal of Environmental Policy & Planning, 27(6), 671-686. doi: 10.1080/1523908X.2025.2489534.
  19. Grabs, J. (2025). The construction of compliance with the European Union deforestation regulation in global coffee value chains. Regulation & Governance. doi: 10.1111/rego.70103.
  20. Hagemejer, J., Stoll, P.-T., Rudloff, B., & Mensah, K. (2025). An update on the economic, sustainability and regulatory effects of the trade part of the EU-Mercosur partnership agreement (PE 754.476). Brussels: European Parliament.
  21. Harrison, J. (2023). Trade agreements and sustainability: Exploring the potential of global value chain (GVC) obligations. Journal of International Economic Law, 26(2), 199-215. doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgac057.
  22. Harrison, J., & Paulini, S. (2024). Reinventing trade, environment and development interlinkages: Lessons from the EU-Mercosur Association Agreement. Journal of International Economic Law, 27(4), 723-740. doi: 10.1093/jiel/jgae044.
  23. Herten-Crabb, A. (2026). Unreachable, inescapable: Sustainable development as normative camouflage in EU-MERCOSUR trade. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies. doi: 10.1111/jcms.70102.
  24. Joint Declaration of the MERCOSUR Signatory States and the European Commission on the Conclusion of Negotiations for the Association Agreement. (2024, December). Retrieved from https://www.mercosur.int/declaracion-conjunta-mercosur-union-europea.
  25. Krämer, L. (2021). A lost opportunity? The environment and the EU-Mercosur trade agreement. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 18(1-2), 143-163. doi: 10.1163/18760104-18010009.
  26. Law of Brazil No. 15,042 “Establishing the Brazilian Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System (SBCE) and Amending Laws No. 12,187 of December 29, 2009, No. 12,651 of May 25, 2012, No. 6,385 of December 7, 1976, and No. 6,015 of December 31, 1973”. (2024, November). Retrieved from https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2023-2026/2024/lei/l15042.htm.
  27. Law of Paraguay No. 7190 “On Carbon Credits”. (2023, October). Retrieved from https://www.bacn.gov.py/leyes-paraguayas/11986/ley-n-7190-de-.
  28. Law of Uruguay No. 19,996 “Approval of the Accountability Report and Budget Execution Balance for Fiscal Year 2020”. (2021, November). Retrieved from https://www.impo.com.uy/bases/leyes-originales/19996-2021/326.
  29. Lima, L.C., Pires, S.M., & Resende, D.N. (2026). Influence of the European Green Deal on international trade agreements: Analysis of the EU-MERCOSUR case. Journal of Economic and Socio-Environmental Law, 17(1), article number e599. doi: 10.7213/rev.dir.econ.soc.v17i1.33038.
  30. Lin, B., & Zhao, H. (2024). Threatening the poor? The economic impacts of carbon border adjustment mechanism on developing countries. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 71, 582-593. doi: 10.1016/j.strueco.2024.09.005.
  31. Malamud, A. (2022). Assessing the political dialogue and cooperation pillar of the EU-Mercosur association agreement: Towards a bi-regional strategic partnership? Brussels: European Parliament, Directorate-General for External Policies of the Union.
  32. Mercado Cordova, J.A., & Koo, Y. (2023). Trade-induced land-use transitions and greenhouse gas emissions: The case of the EU-Mercosur free-trade agreement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 429, article number 139327. doi: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2023.139327.
  33. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock of Brazil. (2025). Frequently asked questions (FAQ). Retrieved from https://www.gov.br/agricultura/pt-br/assuntos/sustentabilidade/programa-agro-brasil-sustentavel/perguntas-frequentes/perguntas-frequentes.
  34. Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Paraguay. (2024). MADES and MIC presented a proposal for an environmental traceability platform. Retrieved from https://www.mades.gov.py/2024/01/19/mades-y-mic-presentaron-propuesta-de-plataforma-de-trazabilidad-ambiental/.
  35. Ministry of Finance of Brazil. (2024). Ecological transformation plan of Brazil. Retrieved from https://www.gov.br/fazenda/pt-br/acesso-a-informacao/acoes-e-programas/transformacao-ecologica/transformacao-ecologica-pagina-antiga/saiba-mais
  36. Muradian, R., et al. (2025). Will the EU deforestation-free products regulation (EUDR) reduce tropical forest loss? Insights from three producer countries. Ecological Economics, 227, article number 108389. doi: 10.1016/j.ecolecon.2024.108389.
  37. Nesadurai, H.E. (2026). Challenging the EU deforestation regulation: Sovereignty games as authority contests in global governance. International Affairs, 102(3), 881-901. doi: 10.1093/ia/iiag036.
  38. Office of the President of Argentina. (2024). Argentina exports deforestation-free certified beef for the first time. Retrieved from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/noticias/argentina-exporta-por-primera-vez-carne-bovina-certificada-libre-de-deforestacion.
  39. Oliveira, G.M., Jafari, Y., & Börner, J. (2025). Heterogeneous effects of export-market preferences on deforestation in Brazil. European Review of Agricultural Economics, 52(5), 1041-1088. doi: 10.1093/erae/jbaf048.
  40. Palmieri, R., Amice, C., Amato, M., & Verneau, F. (2024). Beyond the finish line: Sustainability hurdles in the EU-Mercosur free trade agreement. Social Sciences, 13(7), article number 362. doi: 10.3390/socsci13070362.
  41. Pena, C., Zelicovich, J., Thorstensen, V., & Mota, C. (2023). Mercosur report No. 26: MERCOSUR: Strategic divergences and pragmatic consensus. Retrieved from https://publications.iadb.org/en/publications/english/viewer/Mercosur-Report-No-26-MERCOSUR-Strategic-Divergences-and-Pragmatic-Consensus.pdf.
  42. Perdana, S., Vielle, M., & Oliveira, T.D. (2024). The EU carbon border adjustment mechanism: Implications on Brazilian energy intensive industries. Climate Policy, 24(2), 260-273. doi: 10.1080/14693062.2023.2277405.
  43. Pose-Ferraro, N. (2026). Between geopolitics and political economy: The European Union-Mercosur negotiation to form a trade agreement. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies, 64(1), 248-267. doi: 10.1111/jcms.13743.
  44. Rabbia, M. (2023). Why did Argentina and Uruguay decide to pursue a carbon tax? Fiscal reforms and explicit carbon prices. Review of Policy Research, 40(2), 230-259. doi: 10.1111/ropr.12517.
  45. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council No. 2023/1115 “On the Making Available on the Union Market and the Export from the Union of Certain Commodities and Products Associated with Deforestation and Forest Degradation and Repealing Regulation (EU) No 995/2010”. (2023, May). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/eli/reg/2023/1115/oj/eng.
  46. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council No. 2023/956 “Establishing a Carbon Border Adjustment Mechanism”. (2023, May). Retrieved from https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX%3A32023R0956.
  47. Resolution of Ministry of Industry and Commerce of Paraguay No. 368/2024 “Establishing the Steering Group for the Implementation and Evaluation of Socio-Environmental Traceability Systems to Guarantee the Competitiveness and Full Access of Paraguayan Goods and Products to International Markets, and Repealing Resolutions No. 344/2024 and No. 363/2024”. (2024, May). Retrieved from https://www.mic.gov.py/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/F_Resolucion-368.2024-conformacion-grupo-impulsor-y-se-abrogan-la-344-y-363.pdf.
  48. Resolution of the General Forestry Directorate No. 733/024 “Removal of Property Designation due to Deforestation”. (2024, Ocotber). Retrieved from https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/institucional/normativa/resolucion-n-733024-dgf-desafectacion-del-inmueble-deforestacion.
  49. Resolution of the Ministry of Environment and Sustainable Development of Argentina No. 385/2023 “National Strategy for the Use of Carbon Markets”. (2023, November). Retrieved from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/norma-393127/texto.
  50. Resolution of the Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries of Uruguay No. 182/025 “Requirements for Segregation and Traceability of Bovine Meat, Meat Products, and By-Products Exported to the European Union in Compliance with Deforestation and Forest Degradation Regulations”. (2025, July). Retrieved from https://www.gub.uy/ministerio-ganaderia-agricultura-pesca/institucional/normativa/resolucion-n-182025-dgsg-todos-establ-habilit-mgp-exporten-carne-prod.
  51. Resolution of the Secretariat of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries of Argentina No. 50/2024 “Directory of Agro-Industrial Differentiation Schemes – Establishment. Official Gazette of the Argentine Republic”. (2024, October). Retrieved from https://www.argentina.gob.ar/normativa/nacional/resoluci%C3%B3n-50-2024-404848/.
  52. Shyrokykh, K., & Melen-Zabramna, O. (2025). Europeanisation of Ukraine’s policy on environment and climate: Instrumental and anticipatory compliance. In M. Rabinovych & A. Pintsch (Eds.), Ukraine’s thorny path to the EU (pp. 247-277). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-69154-6_11.
  53. Solar, J., Ivanova, Y., & Oberlack, C. (2025). Human rights and environmental due diligence regulations for deforestation-free value chains? Exploring the implementation of the EU regulation on deforestation-free products in the cocoa and coffee sectors of Peru. Global Policy, 16(4), 602-614. doi: 10.1111/1758-5899.70009.
  54. Trevizan, A.F., Leal, A.M., & Valle, V.E. (2025). Forest trade on the Amazon frontier and its interaction with the EUDR. International Journal for the Semiotics of Law, 38, 1639-1662. doi: 10.1007/s11196-025-10250-7.
  55. van ’t Wout, D. (2022). The enforceability of the trade and sustainable development chapters of the European Union’s free trade agreements. Asia Europe Journal, 20(2), 81-98. doi: 10.1007/s10308-021-00627-1.
  56. World Trade Organization. (1994a). General agreement on tariffs and trade 1994 (GATT 1994). Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/gatt94_e.htm.
  57. World Trade Organization. (1994b). Agreement on technical barriers to trade. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/tbt_e.htm.
  58. World Trade Organization. (2023). WTO members review farm policies, discuss food security, agri-food system resilience. Retrieved from https://www.wto.org/english/news_e/news23_e/agri_28sep23_e.htm.
Suggested citation
Dykha, M., & Dykha, V. (2026). The green transition as a catalyst for policy reform: The impact of the European Green Deal on trade policy in MERCOSUR countries. Journal of Global Political Transformations, 2(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.67524/verus1/1.2026.5