With its proposal for an EU regulation to halt global deforestation due to EU imports or caused by the EU itself, the European Commission set the stage on Wednesday 17 November for a global first, formalising the EU’s willingness to take its share of responsibility while hoping to serve as a model for the world.
This future regulation will impose a duty of due diligence on all traders throughout the supply chain to ensure that only deforestation-free products are allowed to be placed on the EU market. Only SMEs under 10 employees will be exempt for one year.
The broad outlines of this legislation, called for by the European Parliament through a legislative own-initiative report, were known (see EUROPE 12832/13).
The proposal was presented as part of a package of ‘nature’ measures, all part of the European Green Deal and a few days after the COP26 in Glasgow, which marked the recognition of the role of forests in the fight against climate change.
“This shows that the EU is very serious about the green transition and wants to move forward”, said Commission Executive Vice-President Frans Timmermans, responsible for the Green Deal.
“EU is taking the lead and encourages other countries such as the US and China to clean up their supply chain. We are ready to help [third countries]. The aim is to stop deforestation in the EU and beyond and to ensure traceability to combat illegal deforestation, but also deforestation caused by agricultural expansion”, said EU Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius.
Six basic products to start with. The proposed regulation will cover six commodities - beef, soya, timber, palm oil, cocoa and coffee - products where European consumption, which contributes 17% of global deforestation, has been singled out for criticism.
“These are the ones that have the greatest impact on deforestation, with the exception of timber and timber products, which are already covered by EU legislation, but the scope can be extended”, the commissioner said.
Certain by-products, such as leather, chocolate and furniture, listed in an annex, will also be covered.
When asked about the exclusion of rubber, which has been heavily criticised by scientists as it could lead to the conversion of cocoa cultivation, for example, to rubber, Mr Sinkevičius assured that the selection of the six commodities had been made on a scientific basis. Furthermore, “If there is a shift from cocoa to rubber, we will adapt.
A benchmarking system will identify high-risk countries or risk areas in third countries, which will “provide an incentive for these countries”, according to the Commissioner.
The criteria for the list of countries or areas at risk to be drawn up by the European Commission will be diverse: continued deforestation, rate of deforestation, related export flows and channels, political criteria (such as a commitment to combat deforestation or the existence of legislation to combat it).
Sanctions. Responsibility for enforcement of the Regulation will depend very much on the Member States. The text provides for dissuasive and effective sanctions being applied to offending companies, depending on the legal systems of the Member States. These penalties could amount to at least 4% of annual turnover. The European Commission will establish guidelines for this.
The date of 31 December 2020, used as a reference for identifying the existence of forest from which products suspected of being associated with deforestation are derived, is based on the work of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), although the available images date back to 2014. The Parliament is asking for 2015.
The text is limited to forests, “as defined by the FAO”, said the Commissioner. This is contrary to the wishes of the Parliament, which called for the destruction of other vital ecosystems - such as savannahs, grasslands, peatlands and mangroves - to be taken into account in order to ensure the protection of human rights, including those of indigenous peoples.
But the text recognises the legitimate rights of indigenous peoples, Sinkevičius stressed. The proposal was welcomed as “a glimmer of hope”, “a first step” by Greenpeace, which pointed out the shortcomings of the proposal compared with European Parliament’s demands. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)