EU’s groundbreaking deforestation law sabotaged by the European Parliament

The European Parliament today approved the Commission’s proposal to delay the application of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by 12 months. It also voted through new amendments that would allow huge volumes of forest-destroying products to continue to be sold in the EU.

“The EUDR has been held hostage by conservative forces determined to show that they now wield the power in Parliament: a right-wing alliance prepared to sacrifice forests for political gain. 

In forcing through substantial proposed changes to the law, the European People’s Party (EPP) has disregarded democratic principles, undermined the EU’s credibility, and taken an axe to Europe’s efforts to end deforestation in its supply chains,” said Julia Christian, campaigner at Fern. 

A new risk-rating category 

For each product they place on the EU market, the EUDR requires companies to provide the geolocation of where it was grown, and proof that the products comply with national law and are deforestation and degradation-free.  

The European Parliament is now suggesting to create a “no-risk” rating that would exempt whole countries from the above requirements. 

"This new rating risks sabotaging the EUDR altogether. Companies could easily “launder” non-compliant products, by making goods tainted by deforestation transit through a “no-risk” country – which could include countries like China -- before being imported to the EU.” 

The Parliament outlines three criteria for no-risk eligibility. The main one is that a country’s “forest area development remains stable or has increased compared to 1990”.  

During a post-vote press conference, Christine Schneider, the Member of the European Parliament (MEP) who tabled the amendments on behalf of her group, hinted at the fact that this loophole was specially crafted to help EU Member States. As this discriminates against tropical forested countries, this will undoubtedly be an issue at the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which will severely damage the EU’s international credibility and fuel tensions with trading partners.  

“Particularly egregious is the amendment changing countries' deforestation risk ratings, which would give most EU countries a free pass. This is blatant case of treating producer countries outside the EU unfairly, which will only inflame their anger. 

The message to the rest of the world is unmistakable: you must stop destroying your forests, but the EU won't apply the same rules to its own forests, threatened by widespread degradation.” 

Losing forest degradation from the scope 

The proposed benchmarking criteria of “forest area development” is also at odds with the EUDR’s scope. The EUDR’s core objective is to “minimis[e] the Union’s contribution to deforestation and forest degradation.” But the new criteria will abandon the latter commitment, by only requiring companies to consider the amount of tree cover, rather than a forests’ state.  

In other words, if primary forests - which are critical for storing carbon and protecting biodiversity - are cut and replaced by monoculture tree farms, the EUDR would not apply. 

“Since Europe’s forests are not doing well, having experienced heavy degradation over the past few decades, this proposed amendment reeks of naked self-interest and double standards,” Christian added. 

A spectacular reversal of position 

It is the first vote to roll back legislation included in the European Green Deal - the defining vision of EU Commission President Von der Leyen, during the previous legislature.  

Conservative lawmakers grouped under the EPP, which is also Ms. Von der Leyen’s political group, have spearheaded the effort to sabotage the law, despite their efforts to get it passed in the first place. Parts of the vote were so close that it would not have passed without the support of extreme-right groups.  

At the last minute, the EPP decided to withdraw six amendments which would have further damaged the law.  

“The EPP’s hypocrisy is breathtaking. Two years ago, they championed the EUDR: the lead rapporteur for the Regulation was a member of the EPP, and they were happy to receive plaudits for helping pass the law, the first of its kind in the world.” 

Companies and citizens against any change to the law 

Ahead of the vote, businesses and citizens expressed their support for the EUDR. Companies were particularly vocal about the problems that would be caused if the contents of the law were changed.  

“By proposing changes to key parts of the rules they helped set for businesses, and which European companies have spent tens of millions of Euros preparing for, the EPP have sabotaged their own claims to be the champion of business stability and certainty. 

Astoundingly, they have done so without assessing whether these changes are enforceable, how they will impact companies, or whether they will even succeed in tackling deforestation and forest degradation.”  

All eyes on the Commission 

In its initial proposal to delay the EUDR, the Commission stated that “the extension proposal in no way puts into question the objectives or the substance of the law, as agreed by the EU co-legislators.” 

In a normal legislative setting, the Parliament would now negotiate with EU Member States for a final outcome. But the European Commission also has the right to withdraw its proposal, given the Parliament went beyond what was required.

“The Commission has no alternative but to withdraw its proposal to delay the law,” said Christian.

Image: Osvaldo Tesoro / Greenpeace 

Categories: Press Releases, EU Regulation on deforestation-free products