European Parliament backs Weakened EU Deforestation Law amid Voting Chaos

The European Parliament has voted in favour of the proposed one-year delay in the implementation of the EU’s new deforestation law and thrown its weight behind a new ‘no-risk’ category for countries. But amid voting system failures and more negotiations to come, the vote is far from the end of the story. Feeling bamboo-zled? Here Natasha Foote breaks down all you need to know.

Another day, another drama for the EU’s 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 this was something the EPP tried to take full advantage of, seizing the opportunity to slip in new amendments in an attempt to further delay and derail the law in the name of simplification and reducing bureaucratic burden ahead of the vote on Thursday (14 November) (see article below for details).

Broken Tree-ty: Centre-right looks to further hollow out the EU’s Deforestation Law

The move caused a political uproar. Then, just ahead of Thursday’s vote, the group dropped the most contentious of their proposed amendments as part of a last minute political deal with the liberal Renew group – spearheaded by seasoned politician Pascal Canfin. According to a leaked internal email, seen by ARC, the EPP also yielded after assurances from the Commission that they would provide “further simplifications and clarifications”.

This saw the EPP withdraw proposals to double the delay in implementation to two years and to exempt traders from the scope of the law in exchange for Renew’s support on the overall text.

However, the proposal for a new ‘no-risk’ category of country – alongside low, medium and high – was included in the final approved text. This, if approved by the Council, would exempt these countries from the law’s conditions.

This is seen as a weakening of the law by green campaign groups such as Greenpeace, who said that the changes “undermine the objectives and effectiveness of the EUDR by introducing loopholes and creating risks of circumvention”.

“The “no risk” category will allow a big part of deforestation risk trade to go under the radar, will eliminate the core traceability and transparency requirements, dispense companies from risk assessment and make them virtually immune from checks,” Greenpeace said in a statement, adding that only 0.1% of companies importing “no risk” goods will be subject to inspection.

Queen’s gambit

But this is unlikely to pass with member states, according to Renew’s Canfin, who told journalists following the vote that the deal aimed to stymy the full brunt of the EPP’s “most damaging” proposals”, while the no-risk category was left in on the gamble that this would be the “least likely” to be approved by the Council.

“[Renew] are deeply against the no-risk category,” the liberal MEP said, calling it “absolutely stupid”. But “it will not fly until the end”, he said, counting on the fact that “there will not be a majority” among member states for such a move.

The end-game for Canfin is that either the legislative proposal “will be withdrawn, or that when it goes to trilogues they help to get rid of these additional amendments,” he told journalists, adding that while Renew is not against the 12 month delay, it “continues to push” the Commission to withdraw their proposal.

“That’s why we voted against all the remaining amendments but not against the final vote – why? Because we wanted to send a message that we’re ok with the 12 months delay, but we are not ok to have additional amendments to this,” he said.

(Quick reminder – the Parliament is only one half of this equation. The changes to the law also have to be agreed on by their counterparts over in the Council in interinstitutional talks known as ‘trilogues’ – see below for more details).

The vote also showcased the first time that a new, alternative majority could be seen in the Parliament, with the centre-right EPP winning the backing of the far-right. “That’s why they applauded – not for the substance [of the text], but because they won,” Canfin said.

The alignment with the extreme-right was also lambasted by green campaign group WWF, who called this a “shameful moment” for the EPP. “Just last year, the EPP overwhelmingly supported the [law]. Today, they aligned with extreme right-wing factions, putting political posturing over climate action, opening the gates for deregulation whilst casting aside pleas of European citizens and responsible companies to protect our forests,” Anke Schulmeister-Oldenhove, Forests Policy Manager at WWF European Policy Office, said in a statement.

Voting failure

But, to add even more spice to the deforestation law vote, the jury is still out on whether they actually did “win” thanks to a voting failure.

This was the first time that the European Parliament used a new system of electronic votes, and the voting system did not work for a number of MEPs – at current count up to 7 votes were not counted, according to Parliamentary sources.

Considering that some of the amendments on the law passed by as few as 3-5 votes, this could have had a marked impact on the outcome.

Despite calls for a recount, Parliament President Roberta Metsola did not approve a re-vote. Now four groups – including Renew, together with the Greens, Socialists and Left – are lodging a complaint calling for a final recount, according to multiple sources.

What next?

It’s currently difficult to say whether a revote would change things, but the margins are tight.

Either way, 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. This would happen over the course of the next 1-2 weeks, according to Canfin.

Contacted by ARC2020, a spokesperson for the Hungarian Presidency previously said it was not looking to re-enter into negotiations on any proposed changes, a hint that it ‘wood’ be an uphill battle to convince the Council to get on board with any new ideas from the Parliament.

Meanwhile, asked by ARC2020 about possible further changes on the Commission’s side, a spokesperson said the Commission remains “committed to [its] proposal”, but that, as a general point, the EU executive is “also always committed to clarifications and simplifications in the way EU legislation is implemented”.

The Deforestation Law then, while not axed, has been chipped away.