40 I SEED WORLD EUROPE I SEEDWORLD.COM/EUROPE | OCTOBER 2026 tional standards and recognition of the EU as a single entity for export certifications and controls. This is directly relevant to the seed sector, even where the public factsheet is written for agri food more broadly. Seed companies often face practical delays because requirements differ by origin, pest status, treatment, crop group or certificate format. Any move towards clearer time lines, risk-based procedures and interna tional standards could help, provided seed and plant reproductive material are effec tively covered in implementation. Indonesia may also be relevant as part of a broader Indo Pacific diversification strategy for European plant breeders and seed companies. The opportunity is not lim ited to the sale of seed. It may also include collaboration with local partners on crops adapted to tropical conditions, climate stress, disease pressure and changing food systems. The practical value will depend on how the agreement is implemented, and on whether it creates clearer, faster and more predictable conditions for research, variety testing, seed movement and commercial partnerships. MEXICO AND THE BROADER EU TRADE NETWORK The Commission has also moved for ward the modernised EU Mexico Global Agreement for adoption, alongside the Mercosur package. In its September 2025 proposal, the Commission stated that the Mercosur and Mexico agreements form part of the EU’s strategy to diversify trade rela tions, strengthen value chains and widen reliable sources for critical inputs. Mexico is already an important agri cultural and horticultural economy. For the seed sector, a modernised agreement could be relevant to vegetable seed, ornamentals, protected cultivation, field crop innovation policy into implementation. Tools such as Access2Markets will be important, but sector specific interpretation from associa tions and competent authorities will be just as valuable. von Essen also stresses that imple mentation will determine whether trade agreements deliver their full value. “Implementation is always key,” he says. “We’ve all heard the Sunday speeches on the importance of trade, open markets and fair competition. But we have also seen many examples where even basic principles established under WTO were questioned or outright rejected for short-term political gain.” More generally, he says, any bilat eral or multilateral trade agreement that enhances predictability for operators, cuts unnecessary administrative burden and costs, and allows competitive products and services to reach new markets and custom ers will benefit economies. “For a globalised business as the EU seed industry, this is even more true.” Marondedze adds that the agreement has the potential to simplify practical pro cedures for seed companies, but only if its provisions are applied consistently on the ground. Rules of origin, documentation, alignment with international standards, labelling clarity and import procedures may all help reduce uncertainty, but their value will depend on how issues such as pest status interpretation, document checks and administrative timelines are handled in practice. “The agreement’s real value will materialise only if it delivers consistent, pre dictable and workable procedures across all Mercosur countries,” he says. A CAUTIOUS OPPORTUNITY The recent wave of EU trade agreements should not be presented as a simple windfall for the seed sector. Seed trade is too techni cal for that. But the direction is significant. Europe’s plant breeders and seed companies depend on open channels for research, mul tiplication, testing and commercialisation. Agreements that reduce friction, strengthen rules and improve regulatory predictability can therefore support a more resilient seed sector. The coming months will show whether the new agreements deliver practical ben efits. For now, Mercosur provides the first major test. If provisional application trans lates into clearer procedures, smoother documentation and more predictable seed movement, it could become an important example of how broad trade policy can serve a very specific purpose: getting the right seed, of the right variety, to the right place, at the right time. 1 WTO Agreement on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures (SPS Agreement) defines Regionalisation as a concept where an area of a country is recognised as pest or disease-free or with low pest or disease prevalence. https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/sps_e/spsund_e.htm Claudius Marondedze, technical manager plant health and seed trade at Euroseeds and breeding collaboration. The same cau tion applies: the seed sector should look beyond the headline and examine tariff lines, phytosanitary rules, IP provisions, certification requirements and how quickly competent authorities translate treaty lan guage into workable procedures. The EU is also negotiating with Malaysia, the Philippines, Thailand and the United Arab Emirates. For seed companies, these negotiations should be watched closely because Southeast Asia and the Gulf are not only markets, but also strategic regions for food security, horticulture, logistics, seed technology and climate adaptation. WHAT THE SECTOR SHOULD WATCH NOW For the plant breeding and seed sector, the core question is whether these agreements help create a more predictable operating environment. Tariff reductions are welcome, but the larger value may sit in non-tar iff measures: phytosanitary cooperation, faster import procedures, science-based plant health measures, regionalisation, transparent rules of origin, workable label ling, digital documentation, recognition of international standards and stronger enforcement of intellectual property. Plant breeders should also look at how these agreements interact with plant variety protection and the enforcement environment in partner countries. That discussion also connects with the ongoing CPVR evaluation in Europe, which under lines how legal certainty and effective pro tection remain essential for investment in plant breeding. Seed innovation depends on confidence that varieties, parental lines, brands, data and know-how can be pro tected. Where trade agreements strengthen IP rules or improve legal certainty, they may support investment in local partnerships and long-term breeding programmes. It also mirrors wider debates on innovation, access and fair play in plant breeding, where intellectual property frameworks need to support both continued investment and workable access to breeding material. The risk is that political announce ments create expectations faster than imple mentation can deliver. Seed companies will need practical guidance — probably crop by crop and country by country — on what changes immediately, what changes after transition periods and what remains subject to national rules. Recent develop ments around Ukraine’s GM traceability law show how technical requirements on traceability, documentation and regulatory alignment can have direct implications for seed companies once rules move from
View this content as a flipbook by clicking here.