On Thursday, 14 November, think tank Bruegel reviewed the reasons why the regulation on imported deforestation has met with strong opposition.
Postponing the legislation’s entry into force a year is going to be discussed in trilogue in the wake of the European Parliament adopting a different position from the European Commission and the Council of the EU on Thursday, 14 November (see EUROPE 13524/1). MEPs added a category for ‘no risk’ countries at the instigation of the conservative right and the far right.
In its brief, Bruegel highlights what could be included in future legislation.
Like the text’s main critics these past few months, the think tank felt that the European Commission published its guidelines too late. Former European Commissioner for the Environment Virginijus Sinkevičius, who is now an MEP, insisted that stakeholders had been given “a period of at least four years” to get ready, including two years “between final adoption and implementation” (see EUROPE 13482/13).
According to Bruegel, the EU should also adapt its guidelines by sector, since the seven main sectors concerned (cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soya, and wood) vary “widely in terms of supply-chain complexity”. In addition, certification systems already established in certain countries should be recognised, as Brazil has requested (see EUROPE 13492/1).
More radical, Bruegel felt that an incentive would be better than a ban – favouring “pricing products according to their environmental impact” over banning products derived from deforestation in the EU.
See the policy brief: https://aeur.eu/f/ee6 (Original version in French by Florent Servia)