The trilogue on the proposed postponement of the regulation on imported deforestation will begin on Thursday 21 November. The previous day, Wednesday 20th, at the meeting of the Committee of Permanent Representatives of the Member States, the EU Council opposed the amendments made by the European Parliament (see EUROPE 13524/1). As announced, the EU Council intends to support the proposal for a one-year postponement (see EUROPE 13495/1), without making any other changes to the text.
The creation of a category of ‘no risk’ countries, adopted by the European Parliament on Thursday 14 November at the instigation of the European People’s Party (EPP), helped by the votes of the far right, will therefore not be supported by the Member States. A large majority of the latter considered that these amendments would considerably weaken the text.
By modifying the issue of traceability for ‘no risk’ countries, these amendments “go back to the very pillar of the text”, according to a source close to the dossier contacted by Agence Europe.
“Who would decide which countries fall into the ‘no risk’ category and which do not?” the EU Council’s legal service asked the Member States. According to the latter, such a category would create a two-speed system, which would lead to problems of compatibility with the World Trade Organization (WTO), and would disrupt the deadline for classifying countries in the different categories, as the Commission had given itself until 30 June 2025 in its proposal for a postponement.
At least 24 of the 27 Member States would have rejected the European Parliament’s amendments. Some said that it might have been different if there had been more time. Without an agreement by 30 December, the legislation would effectively come into force as originally planned. “None of the delegations came out strongly in favour of the amendments”, the source told Agence Europe, adding that Italy and Austria were “timid”.
Sweden is sympathetic to the European Parliament’s intention to reduce the administrative burden, but rejected the European Parliament’s amendments because of the risks of uncertainty and the major legal risks put forward by the EU Council’s legal service.
The Member States’ position is “irresponsible”, declared Christine Schneider (EPP, German) in a press release issued on the afternoon of Wednesday 20 November. The EPP believes that a simple postponement is not enough. “Bureaucratic burdens and documentation requirements are overwhelming small and medium-sized enterprises”, which, according to Ms Schneider, play “no role in global deforestation”. Christine Schneider will be the European Parliament’s rapporteur for the trilogue.
Pascal Canfin, shadow rapporteur for Renew Europe, welcomed the EU Council’s position. In his view, “in order to ensure that the law’s one-year deadline comes into force on time, the European Parliament has no choice but to agree to revert to the Commission’s original proposal. Any other strategy would seriously jeopardise the businesses and farmers affected by this law”. Pascal Canfin was behind an agreement that enabled the EPP to withdraw the amendments relating to the two-year postponement and the exclusion of traders from the obligations of the regulation. He felt that it would be impossible to settle the issue of a ‘no risk’ category in just a few weeks.
It remains to be seen whether the EU Council will stick to its position during the trilogue. (Original version in French by Florent Servia)