Fears that the request to postpone the regulation on imported deforestation (see EUROPE 13495/1) would open Pandora’s box (see EUROPE 13482/13) have been confirmed.
Christine Schneider MEP (EPP, German) has tabled amendments to the proposed revision of the text, as revealed by our Contexte colleagues. The proposed revision is due to be voted on at the plenary session of the European Parliament on 14 November.
Consulted by Agence Europe, the fifteen or so amendments propose to postpone the entry into force of the regulation by two years (instead of one), to introduce a ‘no risk’ country category in addition to the three existing ones (‘high-risk’, ‘standard-risk’ and ‘low-risk’), to exclude traders from certain obligations and to cooperate more closely with the World Trade Organization (WTO).
Operators in the ‘no risk’ category, from “countries where the forest area is stable or increasing”, would benefit from simplified requirements. They would align themselves “with the provisions of the legislation” and provide “only documentation relevant to products falling within the scope of the EUDR”. Controls would also be “reduced accordingly” for “no risk” categories.
The creation of this category is “totally absurd”, Jonas Sjöstedt (The Left, Swedish) told Agence Europe. It shows, according to him, that the EPP “is prepared to risk the future of the planet and ecosystems to support destructive industries”. In 2017, the EU was responsible for 16% of global deforestation, through its imports.
Traders, on the other hand, should be excluded “from the requirements” of the regulation, according to the EPP, i.e. exempted from due diligence, insofar as “the initial operator has already provided the required documentation”.
The text already mentions regular international discussions with various institutions and organisations, including the World Trade Organization (WTO). But the EPP insists on the need for implementation “in line with the rules-based multilateral international trading system” of the WTO, in order to “avoid retaliation and trade tensions” as well as “disruptions in supply chains”.
Reactions were not long in coming. These EPP amendments are nothing more than a “concession to the forestry industry lobbies”, said Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, French). By seeking to lighten the obligations of due diligence and control on imported products, the EPP is reducing this regulation “to an empty shell”, according to the MEP.
Contacted by Agence Europe, Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA, German) denounced the “gall” of the Conservatives in creating “such chaos around the postponement of the EUDR”. In her view, this strategy could even do them a disservice, given that, in the absence of an agreement before the end of the year, the regulation on imported deforestation “will come into force as planned”.
“With these proposals, the EPP has chosen the path of political posturing rather than that of environmental responsibility”, said Greenpeace, which is critical of the European Right for reducing the regulation on deforestation “into a dead tree”.
The amendments will be put to the vote at the plenary session on 14 November.
See the amendments: https://aeur.eu/f/e7v (Original version in French by Florent Servia)