“There is no total closure. A solution can be found if Europe does not once again sacrifice farmers”, says minister of Agriculture Francesco Lollobrigida. Italy is the tipping point in Brussels
“If the overall framework remains as it is, Italy will hardly be favorable. But there is no total closure. A solution can be found if Europe does not once again sacrifice farmers in favor of other sectors,” italian Agriculture minister Francesco Lollobrigida told us from Brussels regarding the free trade agreement between the European union and Mercosur (the main South American countries). On the agreement, unblocked after 25 years of negotiations by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, Italy holds the deciding vote. Rejecting the treaty requires the veto of at least four Eu countries representing at least 35 per cent of the population. Currently, France, Austria, Poland, and the Netherlands oppose it, accounting for 30 per cent of the population. Rome is therefore pivotal.
This article is translated by artificial intelligence. If you want to report errors you can write to [email protected]
Lollobrigida speaks from Brussels, where he is attending the Agrifish Council. On the sidelines, he met with Copa, the European farmers’ association chaired by Massimiliano Giansanti, which held a protest against the Mercosur agreement. At the meeting on the treaty with producers, the Italian Minister of Agriculture participated alongside his counterparts from France, Spain, Portugal, and Austria. Two of these countries oppose the agreement due to the significant political influence of their agricultural sectors (France and Austria), while the other two support it due to their strong historical and cultural ties with Latin America (Spain and Portugal).
Italy finds itself in a complicated middle-ground position. On one hand, it has strong economic interests and cultural connections with South American countries such as Argentina and Brazil. On the other hand, for this government – repeatedly emphasized by Lollobrigida – agriculture holds “strategic” importance. It is no coincidence, therefore, that the Minister of Agriculture is the one handling the dossier at this stage. He is the key figure everyone looks to for clarification on Italy’s stance. However, it is worth noting that agriculture represents only a small portion of Italy’s overall economy.
The discretion of the minister of Enterprises, Adolfo Urso, has not gone unnoticed. Known as the most outspoken member of Giorgia Meloni’s team and typically quick to respond to events with ready statements, Urso has remained silent on this topic. This silence may be due to the divide between agricultural organizations–such as Coldiretti, Confagricoltura, and Cia–all opposing the agreement, and the business community, which is strongly in favor.
Emanuele Orsini, president of Confindustria, recently expressed his support for expediting the finalization of the free trade agreement, stating, “European businesses need to open new markets, such as Mercosur.” In late November, during a trilateral meeting in Paris with Medef and Bdi – the equivalent industry associations of France and Germany – Orsini highlighted the importance of the deal, describing it as “very shortsighted to limit ourselves to selling our products within Europe, we need to increase our trade surplus.”
Positions in Europe are not ideological; they do not follow the divisions of political families. Instead, they align with the economic interests and productive characteristics of each country. In this context, Italy – being an exporting country with a strong manufacturing sector – should have interests aligned with Germany, favoring a trade agreement that removes 91 per cent of tariffs on all products (equivalent to approximately 4 billion euros annually) with a market area like Mercosur, which includes 273 million people. Specifically, tariffs are eliminated on automotive products (35 per cent), machinery and electrical appliances (14-20 per cent), steel (12-18 per cent), and chemicals and pharmaceuticals (14-18 per cent). These are all high-value-added sectors in which Italy is highly competitive and which account for a significant portion of its exports and trade surplus with South America.
But the agri-food sector is also not monolithically opposed: all the producers with a strong export vocation, those with higher added value, from wines to high-quality products (the agreement protects 57 food brands and denominations, practically all of those that export), are in favor of opening a market that is currently small but with great potential, precisely because it is populated by tens of millions of Italian descendants.
The fact that “Italy could overall gain financially from the export perspective” is acknowledged by Lollobrigida himself, but the goal is to avoid another severe blow to a sector “in great suffering” like agriculture. The agreement is finalized, but what is currently being worked on “pragmatically” with the European Commission are compensations for farmers. These could come from various discussions: an addendum to the agreement and the reform of the new Common Agricultural Policy (Cap). More generally, Brussels should extend a hand to farmers after the conflicts of past years. It must show that Europe does not want to “sacrifice” agriculture but rather rejuvenate it in the spirit of the Rome Treaties.
In this case, the Italian swing vote, which currently leans towards no, could shift to yes. If this doesn’t happen, it would perhaps be a victory for farmers, but certainly a defeat for the Italian economy, difficult for the Meloni government to claim.
-
-
Cresciuto in Irpinia, a Savignano. Studi a Milano, Università Cattolica. Liberista per formazione, giornalista per deformazione. Al Foglio prima come lettore, poi collaboratore, infine redattore. Mi occupo principalmente di economia, ma anche di politica, inchieste, cultura, varie ed eventuali