MEPs voted to postpone the regulation on imported deforestation by one year at a plenary session in Brussels on Thursday 14 November. The European People’s Party (EPP) amendments on the creation of a category of ‘no-risk’ countries (see EUROPE 13523/4) were adopted thanks to votes from the far right.
The amendments relating to the two-year postponement and the exclusion of traders from the obligations of the regulation were withdrawn by the EPP on the morning of the vote, following an agreement reached with Renew Europe. “In return for withdrawing some of the amendments, Renew Europe withdrew its final, decisive vote against the text”, revealed Pascal Canfin (Renew Europe, French), ahead of the vote.
Technical problems with the electronic voting system prevented some MEPs on the left of the Chamber from voting on certain amendments. These malfunctions, pointed out by MEPs during the vote, disrupted its progress, without the President of the European Parliament, Roberta Metsola, agreeing to re-vote on everything, despite repeated requests from Terry Reintke (Greens/EFA, German), Valérie Hayer (Renew Europe, French) and Manon Aubry (The Left, French), who pointed out that certain amendments had been adopted by just three votes. “I could see very well from here if all the lights were on”, explained Roberta Metsola.
Amendments 3 (306 in favour, 303 against) and 9 (311 in favour, 308 against) passed by three votes, amendments 5 (308 in favour, 303 against) and 6 (308 in favour, 303 against) by 5 votes. They concern the establishment of a category of ‘no-risk’ countries, which would benefit from simplified procedures.
“We are going to start a process with the Greens and the S&D, in which we will challenge the results of the votes, because it is clear that more than three voting cards doesn’t work”, said Pascal Canfin. The situation is “undemocratic”, he claimed, especially with “such a close result”.
The return of the “Venezuela coalition”. Progressive parties are denouncing a new alliance between the conservative right and the far right, the first to involve a legislative issue since the summer, said Pascal Canfin on Wednesday 13 November (see EUROPE 13523/4).
According to Tiemo Wölken (S&D, German), “the EPP’s new coalition of choice in Parliament is clear”. The Socialist criticised the EPP for wanting to “sabotage the European Green Deal” and for counting “on the votes of the AfD, Ms (Marine) Le Pen and other right-wing extremists to achieve this". Also contacted by Agence Europe Jonas Sjöstedt (The Left, Swedish) said that this vote “shows how far the right is prepared to go to appease the forestry lobby”.
The expected defections from the EPP were not as numerous as the other parties in the pro-European majority had hoped. Only around twenty of them opposed or abstained. On the other hand, between 8 and 16 Renew Europe MEPs voted with the conservative right and the far right.
Less bureaucracy. “I don’t collaborate upstream to table amendments that the far right approves”, said Christine Schneider (EPP, German). In her view, the far right supported her amendments “because they are a step in the right direction”.
The MEP said that she was delighted to be able to help reduce the administrative burden created by the regulation on imported deforestation. “I promised to find ways of making this proposal feasible”, she said, before pointing out that “deforestation-free” countries should be exempt from “obligations and complex bureaucracy”. Her amendments “do not water down” the legislation, she said.
Call to withdraw the proposal. The progressive parties are not of the same opinion, since the amendments adding the ‘no-risk’ category are “the most unfavourable”, according to Marie Toussaint. By excluding products from many countries from the due diligence obligation, this category “eviscerates” the regulation, according to the Greens/EFA group.
The progressive parties are therefore calling on Ursula von der Leyen to withdraw the European Commission’s proposal, as part of an oral agreement that promised them an opening of the text without watering it down.
The trilogue must be completed quickly. “The only question that remains is that of the ‘no-risk’ category”, said Pascal Canfin. However, in his view, it would face “ a blocking minority in the Council of the EU”, because “it would undermine the single market”. The French MEP sees a conflict between “France, Germany, Finland, Sweden and Romania” over whether or not they are ‘no-risk’. For him, under these conditions, it will be “impossible”, to “settle this issue in a few weeks”.
However, the trilogue must reach a formal Interinstitutional Agreement before 30 December to validate the one-year postponement proposed by the Commission. Without this agreement, the legislation will have to be applied, as planned, starting 31 December 2024. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)