MEPs will be voting on the postponement of the regulation on imported deforestation (EUDR) at the plenary session on Thursday 14 November. The EU Council has already taken a position in favour of postponing the legislation by one year (see EUROPE 13505/13), as proposed by the European Commission on Wednesday 2 October (see EUROPE 13495/1).
“The amendments proposed by the EPP aim to significantly weaken the proposal”, lamented Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA, German). In particular, they call for application of the regulation to be postponed by two years, the creation of a category of ‘no-risk’ countries and the removal of traceability obligations for traders who have not directly imported products resulting from deforestation.
By tabling 15 amendments at the last minute on Wednesday 6 November, Christine Schneider (EPP, German) and the EPP have flouted an agreement made between the parties of the pro-European majority.
The day before the Commission proposed the one-year postponement, Ursula von der Leyen reportedly assured the progressive parties that the legislation would not be weakened by amendments. Peter Liese (EPP, German) then confirmed this by voting for a postponement without amendments at the policy coordinators’ meeting of the European Parliament’s Committee on Environment.
The President of the European Commission even assured Valérie Hayer, over the telephone, that she would “withdraw the proposal to postpone” if amendments were to appear, Pascal Canfin revealed on Wednesday 13 November.
“The European Commission expected the procedure to be swift”, confirmed former European Commissioner for Environment Virginijus Sinkevičius (Greens/EFA, Lithuanian), who was at the helm of this legislation during the previous mandate.
Only the EPP has tabled amendments. The situation is raising questions among the progressive parties, who feel betrayed. “Who does the EPP want to work with?” “Will the von der Leyen coalition hold?”, Anna Cavazzini (Greens/EFA, German) asked. “We keep asking Ursula von der Leyen to keep her troops in line”, said an exasperated Marie Toussaint (Greens/EFA, French).
As well as sending out the message that “it is normal to create unnatural majorities with the far right”, these amendments are adding to the tension within a European Parliament divided over the appointments of the European Commission vice-presidents, according to Marie Toussaint.
According to several MEPs, the manoeuvre came from the Chair of the EPP group, Manfred Weber. By supporting these amendments, the EPP would be allying itself with the far right for the third time since the summer. There was the resolution on Venezuela in September, then the motion for a resolution on the budget (see EUROPE 13510/1). An EPP alliance with the far right on deforestation would be “a legislative first”, insisted Pascal Canfin.
Negotiations were held on the afternoon of 13 November with Christine Schneider, the MEP who tabled the 15 amendments. Earlier in the day, Marie Toussaint was still hoping that the amendments would be withdrawn.
At the same time, she was aware that this decision could be at the heart of a political manoeuvre: “Without being sure, we expect the EPP to offer to withdraw the amendments in exchange for our approval of Raffaele Fitto”, the Commissioner-designate for Cohesion and Reforms, who is affiliated with the ECR. This blackmail is unlikely to make them give in, as the issue of “the presence of the far right in the vice-presidency” is “too important”, according to Marie Toussaint. “If we give in”, she said, “we know they’ll do it again and again”.
Renew Europe, S&D and the Greens/EFA will oppose all the amendments in the vote on Thursday 14 November. The EPP is said to be divided, with “30 to 40 MEPs, depending on the source”, not prepared to support the amendments, “because they are not in line with what Ursula von der Leyen has said and what the Council of the EU has approved”.
It would take more than that to reject the 15 amendments submitted by Christine Schneider. A surprise could come from the European Conservatives and Reformists (ECR), according to Pascal Canfin, who had “not decided what their position would be” on Wednesday 13 November. The French MEP attributes this indecision to the many companies opposed to the amendments (see EUROPE 13522/15) and finds the ECR MEPs “more reliable” recently.
What options are on the table? The institutions have until the end of 2024 to reach an agreement. Contacted by Agence Europe, a European Parliament official confirmed that “if nothing is adopted by the EP and the Council, the EUDR will come into force as planned at the end of the year”.
If the 15 EPP amendments are adopted on Thursday 14 November, the left side of the Chamber could vote against the text as a whole, as proposed by the Commission to postpone the regulation for a year. If the text does not pass, the European Parliament will have no position. In this case, the Parliament would have to vote on the basis of the EU Council position, which followed the European Commission’s proposal on 14 December. The one-year postponement would then have a chance of being completed on time.
If the text were to be adopted with the 15 amendments, the position of the European Parliament would differ from that of the EU Council and a trilogue would have to be held, with just a few weeks to reach an agreement.
“The greater the difference, the more difficult the task will be”, said Pascal Canfin, as the Council had already indicated that it was “not at all prepared to move away from the starting point, i.e. the one-year period”. The creation of a category of ‘no-risk’ countries would, for example, introduce tensions between EU Member States, according to Mr Canfin, by not putting them all in the same boat and contravening the concept of the single market.
Virginijus Sinkevičius was also not sure that the Member States would support the message of “unpredictability” that yet another U-turn would send “to businesses and investors”, who appreciate being able to see ahead. According to the former European Commissioner for Environment, “many have already made significant investments” to bring themselves into compliance. Basically, he said, “the Commission still has the option of withdrawing its proposal”. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)