In a letter sent to the European Commission on Monday 7 July, 18 EU Member States called for the regulation aimed at combating ‘imported deforestation’ to be further simplified and, pending proposals from the European Commission, to “further postpone the date of application of the regulation”.
The letter confirms a request that had already been made at the end of May, at a Council of European Agriculture Ministers, by around 10 EU Member States (see EUROPE 13648/3).
The 18 Member States have suggested, without explicitly asking, that a ‘zero’ risk country category could be added to the existing ‘low’, ‘standard’ and ‘high’ risk categories (see EUROPE 13646/7).
“Instead of targeting deforestation where the risk is highest, the regulation imposes disproportionate bureaucratic obligations on countries, where deforestation is demonstrably insignificant”, said the Agriculture Ministers of the signatory countries (Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Slovenia, Slovakia, and Sweden) and Poland’s Environment Minister.
In their view, the full traceability required on the EU market for all raw materials is untenable. “Onerous and not justified”, the requirements imposed in low-risk countries could result in additional costs for raw materials, which will be passed on to production costs and product prices on the market. Ultimately, they say, the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) would lead to “our producers relocating their production outside the European Union”.
On 27 May, the day after the Agriculture Council, the WWF pointed out that the risks were real, as the EU is a “major importer of products linked to deforestation” (see EUROPE 13649/8). On 7 July, the NGO Fern recalled out that the EUDR was also intended to combat forest degradation, and that in Sweden, Austria and Finland, “opposition [to the text] is being led by powerful players in the forestry and paper industries, closely linked to national governments”. Fern adds that a “controversial slaughter operation” is being carried out in northern Sweden by the company SCA.
In addition, the ‘zero risk’ category would be “legally inapplicable under World Trade Organization (WTO) rules”, according to Fern.
In 2024, the industry sector, the Ministers of Agriculture and part of the European Parliament had already obtained a one-year postponement of the entry into force of the regulation, from the end of 2024 to 2025, for large operators and traders (see EUROPE 13528/8).
At the end of June, an objection to the implementing act of the regulation submitted by Alexander Bernhuber (EPP, Austrian) in Parliament’s Environment Committee was accepted thanks to votes from the far right (see EUROPE 13666/18). It will be voted on at the plenary session of the Parliament on Wednesday 9 July.
The MEP is calling for the creation of a category of ‘zero-risk’ countries and for the European Commission to withdraw its implementing act for the regulation, which was unanimously supported by the Member States on 2 May, adopted on 22 May and entered into force on 26 May. This objection to the implementing act is not legally binding.
See the letter: https://aeur.eu/f/hql (Original version in French by Florent Servia)