The scope of the future EU regulation to minimise deforestation and forest degradation worldwide, caused by products consumed in or exported from the EU, is one of the major issues that the EU Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission will have to decide on during the third and final round of negotiations (3rd trilogue) that started on the evening of Monday 5 December, with the firm intention of reaching a political agreement - even if it means spending the whole night.
“This is the most obvious issue”, but not the only one, stressed the Parliament’s chief negotiator, Christophe Hansen (EPP, Luxembourger), on Monday morning, as he gave the press his assessment of the issues still open, already detailed in our news bulletin (see EUROPE 13076/6, 13061/19).
He stressed the importance Parliament attaches to this landmark international issue, which will introduce mandatory due diligence in the supply chain for the first time.
“Time is running out. Every year, 10 million hectares of forest are lost worldwide. The EU contributes to 10% of this destruction through its consumption of products grown on land that was previously forest. Forests are very important as carbon sinks, but also as habitats for many species. An up and running regulation would be a strong concrete contribution to the COP15 on biodiversity”, (Montreal, 7-19 December), he said.
Avoiding the relocation of deforestation. Beyond the six commodities (palm oil, beef, wood, coffee, cocoa and soya) proposed by the Commission, Mr Hansen recalled that, for the Parliament, the inclusion of other wooded land than just primary forests in the scope is crucial. “If we want to avoid that this huge destruction is delocalised, there can be no differentiation on the basis of a forest density criterion”, he insisted, pointing out that this requirement does not have much support among Member States and that “I would be strongly disappointed” if there is an agreement without this inclusion.
Moreover, he said, the addition of maize to the scope is “the most controversial”, mainly because of strong opposition from the EU Council. However, there would be “a chance” to get printed products and coal included. “It will be more difficult for palm oil derivatives”.
It is likely that financial institutions will not be covered by the regulation, as the EU Council and the Commission are not in favour of it. When asked about this, Mr Hansen, himself a sceptic, said that the revision clause in the regulation could be a solution.
Human rights, controls and sanctions are among the other issues dear to the Parliament and mentioned by Mr Hansen.
As far as human rights are concerned, the Parliament is keen to have their protection included in the body of the operational text, which is not a given. “If the EU Council wants to conclude, this point is very important”, the Parliament’s chief negotiator said, believing that “inclusion in Article 3 of the Regulation would be appropriate”.
On the issue of controls, which the EU Council wants to see for third countries in the high-risk category, Mr Hansen stressed that the Parliament was calling for more controls and that “it is not acceptable that there are no controls for low-risk countries”.
The Parliament considers the Commission’s proposal to be too weak and wants harmonised sanctions for those who violate the obligations of due diligence by placing products on the market without geolocation data. “The message must be very clear: at least coordinated sanctions are needed to ensure the same effectiveness in the Member States. A percentage of EU turnover should be considered”, said Mr Hansen. (Original version in French by Aminata Niang)