The European Parliament’s decision to dilute the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) is receiving a barrage of criticism from environmental activists and other industry stakeholders for what is seen as “watering down” of policy targeting the fight against commodity-linked deforestation. In addition, a vote has been adopted to add a new “no risk” category of countries which would see some regions benefit from far lighter controls. This sparks fears that some countries will get a “free pass.”

Parliament was expected to approve plans to postpone EU deforestation obligations by one year so that companies can comply with the law that ensures products sold in the EU are not sourced from deforested land.

Amendments spoil carefully laid plans

But a series of amendments to the EUDR were also adopted which is causing some concern. Many believe this is the start of an orchestrated dismantling of the EU’s Green Deal by some political players geared toward rolling back environmental policy.

These include creating a new category of countries posing “no risk” on deforestation in addition to the existing three categories of “low”, “standard” and “high” risk. Countries classified as “no risk”, defined as countries with stable or increasing forest area development, would face significantly less stringent requirements as there is a negligible or non-existent risk of deforestation. 

The postponement of the start of the EUDR as well as other amendments were adopted by 371 votes to 240 and 30 abstentions in a plenary held yesterday. 

The EUDR was due to take effect on December 30 and aims to ensure that products from cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soy and other non-food related commodities, do not contribute to deforestation.

The Commission will have to finalize a country benchmarking system by June 2025.

Parliament referred this file back to the committee for interinstitutional negotiations. The agreed text must be endorsed by both Council and Parliament and published in the EU Official Journal.

The amendments to weaken the law were proposed by the European People’s Party.

Going backwards

Julian Oram, policy director at Mighty Earth, branded it a “a dark day for Europe’s environmental credentials”, claiming these decisions are stripping the EU of its role as a global leader in the fight against climate change, biodiversity loss and human rights violations.

“The inclusion of a new “no risk” category will allow many countries to be considered risk-free, even if deforestation, degradation and illegal practices are still occurring. It is also likely to encourage large-scale smuggling of agricultural commodities from high-risk territories to “no risk” countries, en route to the EU.”  

“The approval of these awful amendments now sets in train a dangerous game of cat and mouse between the Parliament, European Commission and member states, with the future of the world’s forests and the people and wildlife that depend on them for survival, hanging by a thread.”

A make or break moment for global forests

The amendments to the EUDR would add loopholes that open the law up to challenge, create confusion and will drive forest destruction, according to Greenpeace.

“More than a million EU citizens demanded a strong law to protect forests and in 2022 they got it. So it is absolutely shameful that now, almost two years later, the European People’s Party has abandoned its previous support for this urgently needed law in light of the climate emergency and has teamed up with parties of the populist and extreme right to drastically weaken the EU deforestation regulation,” says Greenpeace EU forest policy director Sébastien Risso.

“Companies and third countries have been preparing for this law since its adoption last year.  The EPP’s abrupt abandonment of principle, just weeks before the law kicks in, threatens to undermine the trust in the EU’s ability to provide a stable legal environment for businesses and investors.”

In forcing through substantial proposed changes to the law, “the European People’s Party has disregarded democratic principles, undermined the EU’s credibility, and taken an axe to Europe’s efforts to end deforestation in its supply chains,” says Julia Christian, campaigner at Fern.

“This new rating risks sabotaging the EUDR altogether. Companies could easily “launder” non-compliant products by making goods tainted by deforestation transit through a “no-risk” country, which could include countries like China, before being imported to the EU.”

The FAO estimates that 420 million hectares of forest were lost to deforestation between 1990 and 2020. EU consumption represents around 10% of global deforestation. Palm oil and soya account for more than two-thirds of this.