The European Parliament voted, on Tuesday 13 September in Strasbourg, in favour of a more ambitious regulation than envisaged by the Commission and the EU Council to significantly reduce the EU’s contribution to global deforestation, estimated at 10%, through its consumption of commodities imported from regions that degrade or destroy forests for agricultural production.
With the proposed regulation in November 2021, which will introduce mandatory due diligence in supply chains, MEPs hope to kill three birds with one stone: fight biodiversity loss, combat climate change and ensure a level playing field for EU farmers.
The report by Christophe Hansen (EPP, Luxembourger) was adopted with 453 votes in favour, 57 against and 123 abstentions, making the Parliament proud to have initiated this proposal for a binding legal framework for the EU.
Mr Hansen welcomed a pioneering and “balanced” text, which could “serve as a model for other parts of the world”. This vote paves the way for negotiations with the Council of the EU, which took a decision in June (see EUROPE 12981/1).
The Parliament retained its Environment Committee’s ambition (see EUROPE 12991/14) despite attempts by the EPP and the ECR groups to water down the text.
To the six basic products - palm oil, soya, coffee, cocoa, livestock and wood - covered by the future regulation, the European Parliament added rubber, pork, sheep and goats, poultry, maize as well as charcoal and printed paper products. Products such as ethanol and sugar could be added at a later stage, during the review foreseen 2 years after the entry into force of the regulation and after an impact assessment.
The Parliament also extended the scope to woodlands, but not to other vulnerable ecosystems such as swamps or savannahs.
Banks and insurance companies are included, despite the scepticism of the rapporteur. “Only a few financial institutions have so far committed to a deforestation-free portfolio. Relying on voluntary action by companies is not enough”, stressed Delara Burkhardt (S&D, German), author of the legislative own-initiative report voted by the European Parliament at the end of 2020 (see EUROPE 12586/21).
The text retains the three categories of countries according to their level of risk of deforestation, but the controls will be more stringent than the EU Council had advocated for. It also brings forward to 2019 (2020 for the Commission and 2022 for the EU Council) the benchmark for the existence of rainforests that have been subsequently destroyed.
The traceability system will be simplified by the possibility of using maps and not just geolocation by plot of land, which is impractical for small farmers, who will receive financial and technical support to fulfil their obligations. Micro-enterprises will have more time to comply with the regulation.
The voted text also ensures consistency with the future EU regulation on due diligence.
The European Parliament also strengthened the consideration of indigenous peoples by referring to international conventions protecting their rights (and not only to the laws of the country of origin).
“It is important that this new instrument is enforceable and we need to find the right balance between ambition and enforceability. On this point, we will have difficult negotiations with the EU Council”, warned Mr Hansen before the vote, regretting the absence of an EU Council representative during the debate.
The Parliament wants to reach an interinstitutional agreement on this regulation under the Czech Presidency of the EU Council. It will fight for “these controls to be carried out in the Member States and for compatibility with WTO rules”, the rapporteur assured.
“We need traceability, a robust benchmarking system”, stressed the European Commissioner for the Environment, Virginijus Sinkevičius, “delighted that the Parliament has taken up these elements”.
However, he warned against a potentially counterproductive ambition. “Rather than overloading the system at the outset, I am convinced that we should move forward gradually. If we are to extend the scope, we need to do so on the basis of solid data, having evidence that the products covered are those through which the EU contributes most to global deforestation”, he argued, warning of the risk of a backlash if the regulation was challenged at international level. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)