The proposed regulation to minimise the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with products placed on the EU market needs improvement, but is an excellent starting point, said MEPs on the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Health and Food Safety (ENVI) on Thursday 18 November.
This “pioneering” proposal, which will impose a due diligence obligation on operators and traders throughout the supply chain to ensure that only products free from deforestation or forest degradation are placed on the EU market, was welcomed by the EPP, S&D, Renew Europe, Greens/EFA, and The Left groups in an exchange with Environment Commissioner Virginijus Sinkevičius (see EUROPE 12834/1) the day after its adoption.
“It is a huge success that the Commission is finally responding to our calls for a European supply chain law against deforestation risks. The proposal is a clear step forward and a good basis for negotiations”, said Delara Burkhardt (S&D, Germany), rapporteur for this dossier (see EUROPE 12832/13).
The weaknesses mentioned by the S&D, Greens/EFA, Renew Europe , and The Left groups are related to the shortcomings in the draft regulation compared with the demands made by the European Parliament in October 2020 (see EUROPE 12587/6).
They pertain to: – the incomplete scope of agricultural products for which forests in particular are often converted into agricultural land, such as rubber and maize; – the neglect of the role of banks and financial institutions in supporting deforestation-related agro-industrial activities; – the failure to take into account non-forest ecosystems; and – insufficient protection of human rights, particularly those of indigenous peoples.
Hildegard Bentele (EPP, Germany) welcomed the limited scope of the definitions given in the text, “which will provide legal certainty for companies”, the risk-based approach through a benchmarking system and the absence of a civil liability system for companies.
Nils Torvalds from Finland (Renew Europe) raised concerns about certain definitions, such as the long-term impact of clear-cutting in forests.
Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, France) deplored that the text does not clearly talk about ending the global deforestation caused by the EU. She also called for the revision of free trade agreements, such as the one with Mercosur.
On behalf of the Committee on International Trade (INTA), rapporteur Karin Karlsbro (Renew Europe, Sweden) expressed concern about the coherence of EU legislation, including the fate of the FLEGT regulation, and voluntary partnership agreements with third countries, fearing that they would be thrown overboard and undermine the progress made so far on sustainable development.
The Commissioner said that the EU Wood Regulation will be repealed when the newly proposed regulation comes into force, as it will “improve the existing control system”.
On the other hand, the FLEGT regulation and the voluntary partnership agreements signed with third countries will not be called into question. “Our intention is to incorporate these agreements into the new regulation as proof of compliance with the laws of the country of origin”, said the Commissioner.
He also said that the regulation on tackling the EU’s contribution to global deforestation goes beyond the general due diligence requirements that will be contained in Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders’ expected legislative initiative on sustainable corporate governance.
In addition, the EU Sustainable Finance Regulation, the Taxonomy Regulation, and the revised Corporate Sustainability Directive will, according to Mr Sinkevičius, provide a framework for financial sector investments that may contribute to global deforestation - a concern particularly dear to Anja Hazekamp (The Left, the Netherlands).
Members of the ECR and ID groups did not take the floor. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)