The European Parliament on Thursday approved a one-year postponement of the law against deforestation, but also a further softening of the text by an alliance of right-wing and far-right voices, feared by other groups.
This vote relaunches a round of negotiations with the Member States of the European Union in the Council and leaves uncertainty about the future of this law.
This new European regulation should prohibit the marketing in Europe of products (cocoa, coffee, soy, palm oil, wood, etc.) coming from deforested land after December 2020.
Under pressure from Brazil, the United States and also Germany, the European Commission proposed to postpone its entry into force by one year, from 30 December 2024 to 30 December 2025.
The right has passed amendments that create a new category of countries considered “risk-free”, which would be exempt from some obligations of this regulation, for example Germany.
The EPP claims to defend “European companies” so that they “are not unfairly penalized by excessive administrative burdens”, according to French MEP Céline Imart (LR).
On the left and among some centrists, we see it as an attempt to “empty the text of its substance” and to truncate the environmentalist momentum of the previous legislature marked by the Green Deal.
Furthermore, this vote marks a de facto alliance between the right and the far right. Since the beginning of the school year it has already expressed its opinion on symbolic texts on Venezuela or on the budget, but not on the substance of a European law.
– “Alternative majority” – </
This time, the “alternative majority” that other political forces feared was well formed to rework environmental regulation.
This vote goes against the alliance of July, when the EPP, social democrats and centrists jointly supported the reappointment of Ursula von der Leyen as head of the European Commission.
“The signal is devastating for Europe’s commitment to protecting the climate and biodiversity,” German ecologist Anna Cavazzini had already expressed indignation.
Finalized at the end of 2022 and promulgated in 2023, the new rules against deforestation are arousing protest in general from the agri-food business community and from many African, Asian and South American states, concerned about the additional costs generated for farmers, ranchers and foresters.
Importing companies, responsible for their own supply chain, will have to demonstrate traceability through geolocation data provided by farmers, combined with satellite photos.
For the conservatives of the EPP this text is a ”bureaucratic monster”. The right resumes the anti-standard stance displayed during the agricultural rage in early 2024.
However, this new legislation is considered essential by environmental organizations who hope for a world first that could involve other regions of the world.
Thursday’s vote “reopens the debate in a harmful way, while this legislation is quite ambitious and innovative”, believes Blaise Desbordes, general director of the fair trade association Max Havelaar.
This debate takes on particular relevance at a time when the EU appears determined, despite opposition from France, to sign a free trade agreement with the Latin American Mercosur countries by the end of the year, potentially to increase agricultural imports.
The Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) estimates that 420 million hectares of forests have been destroyed due to deforestation between 1990 and 2020. According to the European Parliament, European consumption represents around 10% of global deforestation.
#Fight #deforestation #European #Parliament #relaxes #law
How might the postponement of the EU’s deforestation law affect international trade relations with developing countries?
Interview: Time.news Editor and Environmental Policy Expert
Editor: Welcome, and thank you for joining us today to discuss the recent developments in the European Parliament regarding deforestation laws. To set the stage, could you summarize the implications of the one-year postponement of this crucial law?
Expert: Thank you for having me. The postponement of the deforestation law is significant as it is aimed at prohibiting the marketing of products derived from deforested land within the European Union. The original aim was to ban products like cocoa, coffee, and palm oil sourced from deforested areas after December 2020. This delay means that the enforcement date has been pushed from December 2024 to December 2025, which gives more time for negotiations but also raises concerns about the effectiveness of the law in addressing environmental issues.
Editor: It seems this decision has divided opinions in the European Parliament. What are the main points of contention between the different political factions?
Expert: Absolutely. On one side, we have the right-wing and far-right factions that argue this law could unfairly burden European companies, claiming it poses excessive administrative challenges. They pushed through amendments that create a category of ”risk-free” countries, effectively exempting some, such as Germany, from certain obligations. On the other hand, centrist and left-wing groups view this as an attempt to dilute the environmental protections initially embedded in the legislation. They argue that such compromises could undermine the Green Deal and weaken Europe’s commitment to combating climate change.
Editor: There seems to be an emerging alliance among the right and far-right in these discussions. How do you see this impacting future environmental regulations?
Expert: This alliance indicates a shift in the parliamentary dynamics. The new “alternative majority” could potentially reshape how environmental regulations are developed in Europe. This coalition has already shown capacity to challenge previously formed alliances, such as the one that supported von der Leyen’s reappointment. If this trend continues, we may see increasingly lenient environmental standards in Europe, which many environmental advocates, like German ecologist Anna Cavazzini, have criticized as a devastating sign for climate and biodiversity protections.
Editor: What about the concerns from the agricultural sector, particularly from countries in Africa, Asia, and South America? How does this law affect them?
Expert: The agricultural business community has voiced significant concerns about this law, fearing the additional costs associated with compliance. Farmers and ranchers from developing countries could face burdensome traceability requirements, as they will need to provide geolocation data and satellite imagery to confirm their products do not come from deforested areas. This could lead to increased prices and complicate international trade relations. Thus, while the intent of the law is to protect the environment, the economic repercussions on vulnerable economies are a critical consideration.
Editor: looking ahead, what do you believe will be the most important factors for Europe as it navigates the challenges of environmental policy and international pressure?
Expert: The path forward will require a delicate balance. Europe must uphold its environmental commitments while being sensitive to the economic implications for both domestic industries and international partners. Continued dialogue among Member States, engagement with the agricultural sector, and robust public discourse can help policymakers craft effective regulations that protect the climate but also consider the socioeconomic realities. Transparency and adherence to climate science will be vital in evolving these laws, and Europe needs to maintain its leadership role in global environmental policy.
Editor: Thank you for this insightful discussion. The landscape of environmental policy in Europe remains complex and dynamic, and we appreciate your expertise in navigating these important issues.
Expert: Thank you for having me. It’s crucial to keep these conversations going as we face the challenges ahead.