EUDR: In trying to pacify commercial protests, the Commission has lost sight of the public interest
16 octobre 2024
After recently offering reassurances to the contrary, the EU Commission’s public statement, 2 October 2024, that it intended to delay the full application of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) was a shock. The relentless political targeting of the EUDR has paid off – at least for now – but there is still hope that such a delay can be avoided.
The announcement underscores how short institutional memory can be: The EUDR, a world first, was adopted because a considerable majority of EU consumers – 87%, according to a poll spanning 25 EU Member States (FW 246) – felt such legislation was necessary. Negotiated in detail over several years, the EUDR covers commodities that cause almost 90% of forest destruction, and far too frequently entails human rights violations. It was finally adopted with an enviable, overwhelming majority in the EU’s only democratically elected institution, the European Parliament (552 votes in favour, 44 against and 43 abstentions).
Since then, a vehement backlash has taken aim at innovative EU legislative proposals, very nearly sinking the Nature Restoration Law in 2023 (FW 287), and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive earlier this year (FW 294). Stoked for political purposes ahead of the EU elections, and goaded by industrial groups’ dire warnings and threats (FW 297), the strident attacks are now directed at the EUDR.
If the EU Council and Parliament accept the delay in EUDR implementation (they vote in October and November, respectively), it would represent a serious blow to those actors who, in good faith, have been quietly putting in place the systems and structures to ensure that their supply chains would be compliant by the initial December 2024 deadline.
Among these are responsible companies, such as world-leading chocolate manufacturers, that have devoted energy and resources to eliminate risks of non-compliance and to integrate smallholders into their supply chains. Governments have also invested: e.g., Ghana has set up a new national cocoa traceability system intended to reduce compliance costs of smallholders; and Côte d’Ivoire has created ID cards for farmers that enhance traceability, allow them to access e-payments (FW 296) and offer an opportunity to halt fraudulent under-payments.
According to the NGO Earthsight, the EU’s own studies estimate that a year-long delay would condemn some 2,300 km2 of global forest. It would disillusion smallholders and Indigenous Peoples who see the EUDR as a chance to bind protection of their rights to enforceable international trade obligations.
On a more hopeful note, the Commission has thus far refused to re-open and water down the EUDR’s actual text. We expect them to remain steadfast: to capitulate on this would set a harmful precedent for rule of law, in effect allowing mighty commercial interests to pick apart EU legislative processes and exercise veto power over duly adopted legislation that serves the broader public interest.
To further salvage some optimism from the situation, the EU has expressed its intention to forge stronger partnerships with producer countries – an area where the Commission itself acknowledges it has not been sufficiently proactive. An inclusive approach is essential: Whereas at present, civil society organisations (CSOs) and smallholder representatives tend to be given a reluctant welcome, if any (FW 289), they must be intentionally integrated into partnership structures as valued participants helping to forestall problems before they are entrenched. Based on exchanges with producer-country CSOs, Fern’s blueprint for what partnership agreements could achieve offers further insights.
Image credit: Rich Carey/Shutterstock
Catégories: News, Forest Watch, EU Regulation on deforestation-free products
