Moves are afoot to slip new amendments into the EU’s recently delayed deforestation law in an attempt to further derail and delay the law from entering into application. Centre right European People’s Party (EPP) is proposing a raft of changes which weaken the deforestation law. So what is the group up to? Natasha Foote has the news.
Centre right European People’s Party (EPP) is proposing a raft of changes which weaken the EU’s already delayed deforestation law. The law, which was adopted back in 2023, sets out rules to ensure that products derived from certain commodities – like coffee, cocoa, palm oil, soya, cattle, rubber and wood – placed on the EU market or exported from the EU have not been linked to deforestation.
Despite already entering into force, the Commission proposed to delay the law’s application by one year by the Commission, amid strong pushback from farming and industry lobbies. This meant re-opening the law – and now the centre-right is looking to take full advantage of this.
First and foremost, the EPP is pushing to double the delay from one to two years. Other amendments include a proposal to create a new ‘no-risk’ category of country – alongside the currently proposed low, standard, high categories on the table – exempting these countries from the law’s conditions.
The centre-right is also pushing to see all traders exempt from the rules. This would mean that the onus would only be on the start of the food chain to prove its deforestation-free credentials.
The changes to the law – which, amid staunch lobbying, was already approved in a significantly weakened form compared to its original ambition – add the stipulation that if forest cover is stable or increasing then regions cannot be categorised as high risk.
What wood this mean tangibly?
Contacted by ARC2020, the centre-right EPP – the same political family as the newly elected EU Agriculture Commissioner – explained that the changes are designed to lighten the bureaucratic burden that the law places on SMEs. This is a sentiment echoed by EU farmers association Copa-Cogeca, which has been vocal critics of the new rules.
But the law’s proponents – which include environmental associations, but also a number of big food industry names such as Nestlé, Danone and retailers Delhaize and Carrefour – are up in arms over the potential knock on impacts of such changes.
The first, most obvious, of these is that the law risks being pushed even further down the line at a time when the main driver of global deforestation and forest degradation is the expansion of agricultural land linked to the production of commodities included in the scope of the regulation – commodities which the EU is a major consumer of.
The second is that the introduction of categories such ‘no risk’ could open new loopholes for third countries to try to get out of the conditions stipulated by the law. Instead, they would be simply subject to national laws. Traders would also be off-the hook in doing their due diligence on the products they deal.
For the WWF, the matter is clear. “With these proposals, EPP chose to take the path of political posturing over environmental responsibility,” the group wrote in a statement, adding that the proposed measures would turn the deforestation regulation “from the EU’s only strong, effective instrument to prevent global deforestation and climate change into a hollow shell, effectively allowing a continuation of the destruction of the world’s forest”.
“It is scandalous that the EPP, who consider themselves as protecting industry interests and always cite the need for predictability for business, are throwing any certainty and predictability out the window with their careless amendments,” the NGO said, pointing out that many businesses have already started to take steps towards readying their supply chains for its application.
Meanwhile, politically speaking, the move has also caused an uproar. According to Parliamentary sources, the EPP had originally promised not to exploit the re-opening of the law to allow for the Commission’s initial one-year postponement to add extra changes.
Asked for comment, a spokesperson for the group declined to comment on whether such a deal was struck. But, according to sources, the perceived betrayal has put the back up of those on the left of the Parliament, including the Greens and the Socialists.
What next?
The European Parliament is due to vote on the matter next Thursday (14 November).
As things stand, the EPP will likely have to turn to the right and hard-right to garner enough support for its proposal to pass, given that the Greens, Liberals and Socialists are all against the changes to the text.
But, for the changes to be concreted, the Council also has to have its say on the matter before anything is approved. The next step would therefore be to open inter-institutional talks – known as trilogues – to negotiate the final position.
Contacted by ARC2020, a spokesperson for the Hungarian Presidency was clear that it was not looking to re-enter into negotiations on the proposed changes.
On the basis that the Council has already approved the Commission’s proposal without amendments, a spokesperson for the Presidency said that, for the sake of “predictability and legal certainty”, they “urge the co-legislators to adopt the regulation as soon as possible, without modifications, given the urgency of the matter”. This position is valid for both the Council and the Parliament, they added.
This means that even if the proposed changes make it into the Parliament’s position, it may be an uphill battle to convince the Council to get on board with the ideas.
More
Paving the Way for Agriculture Emission Reductions – the Danish case
What will the EU’s new ‘boots on the ground’ Agriculture Commissioner bring to the table?
The EU is Mulling a Seismic Budgetary Shift – What Would This Mean for Agri and Rural Areas?
CAP not Matching Europe’s Green Ambitions, say Auditors (again)
Will the Nature Restoration Law Decision be Reversed? Not likely – here’s why
