EU deforestation law under attack. The EPP and the far right have the numbers to water it down (and they know it)

Brussels – The EU law on deforestation is at a decisive crossroads. But there’s more: tomorrow’s (Nov. 14) vote in the European Parliament will not only determine whether there will be a delay in the crackdown on products from over-exploitation of forests by a year or more but it is a test case for the Green Deal‘s staying power in the new European legislature. Much depends on the European People’s Party (EPP), which has proposed several amendments to water down the text and which – if it does not backtrack – will reveal the existence of a majority on the right capable of taking a stab at any proceeding related to the green transition, with the complicity of Ursula von der Leyen herself. 

There are the numbers for an alternative majority to the pro-European one, already renamed the Venezuela majority — after the September vote on the resolution condemning the Maduro regime supported by the EPP, the Conservatives, Patriots, and Sovereignists. Now, however, at stake is the trademark of the first von der Leyen Commission, the Green Deal strongly advocated by the EPP leader herself. The point is that by reopening the debate on regulation in place since the summer of 2023, the EU leader now risks opening Pandora’s box.

 In October, the European Commission proposed to delay by one year the implementation of the deforestation law – now around the corner, scheduled for Dec. 30, 2024 – giving in to pressure from the increasingly vocal wing of the European right, led by the president’s own party. Specifically, the provision, called EUDR (Regulation on Deforestation-free Products), is supposed to prevent the entry into the single market of products that result from the over-exploitation of forested areas, imposing greater control of their supply chain on companies.

It would affect palm oil, wood, beef, and rubber in particular, but also several associated materials, such as leather, chocolate, furniture, printed paper, and charcoal. According to the FAO, more than 420 million hectares of forest have gone up in smoke over the past 30 years due to deforestation. And through its consumption, the EU is responsible for about 10 percent of global deforestation. 

The ball returned to the European Parliament after securing approval from the member states to a delay that is deemed reasonable to allow international partners and European companies to adjust to the new provisions. The EPP took advantage of the situation, proposing 15 amendments to the EUDR. These amendments betray the Commission’s promise of “not wanting to touch the substance” of the regulation, something a Brussels spokesman reiterated yesterday.

 First and foremost, the Populars want an extra year, translating into a two-year deferral from the original date of Dec. 30, 2024. In the other amendments, the idea is to exclude traders from almost all supply chain control obligations and introduce a fourth category of “no-risk” countries -alongside low-, medium-, and high-risk. Products from these countries could continue to enter the single market without new safeguards related to deforestation risk.

If even one of the amendments were to pass, then inter-institutional negotiations with the European Commission and the Council of the EU would be reopened. The executive would have the power to withdraw its proposed amendment to the regulation at any time. However, this depends on political will; without that, even the one-year postponement would fall through.

The EPP claims it “does not want to kill the deforestation law.” However, it represents “a bureaucratic monster that risks overburdening EU farmers, businesses, and trading partners with excessive red tape.” Alarm in the pro-European majority is high, all the more so amid the ongoing tensions for the confirmation of the EU commissioners appointed by von der Leyen. In a statement, the Social Democrats (S&D) group said that while “recognizing the need for the one-year postponement,” it “strongly opposes” the EPP amendments that seek to “water down” the EUDR. “Should these amendments pass, we call on Ursula von der Leyen to completely withdraw the postponement proposal,” the Socialists said. 

Of the same opinion are the Greens, who in July supported von der Leyen’s reelection subject to a guarantee of no backtracking on the Green Deal. According to the environmental group, the EPP’s move is “a warning bell of what could happen in the coming years if we call into question the text of the Green Deal.” EPP Vice-President Jeroen Lenaers responded to critics proudly from the Brussels hemicycle: “Our amendments improve the law. Don’t vote for them if you don’t like them,” he said, confident that the EPP had the numbers to get the amendments approved with the support of the three far-right groups. 

If on the left and right of the Populars, the behavior in tomorrow’s vote has already been made explicit or is largely predictable – with the exception of the Liberals, who on the EPP amendments could split – the real unknown is precisely the 188 MEPs of the Populars. For the ‘Venezuela majority’ to work, the Populars cannot afford so many sharpshooters within the group. And not all national delegations, including that of Forza Italia, may want to support all the amendments proposed by their group. 

Meanwhile, in the run-up to the vote, several international organizations and large industrial consortiums have come to the defense of the law: from the WWF to Greenpeace, but also Ferrero, Nestlé, and Unilever. The Cocoa Coalition, which includes the Alba-based multinational and other industry giants, “takes note of the Commission to delay the implementation of the EUDR by twelve months” and calls for it “to be adopted as quickly as possible, without changes, to give companies maximum certainty on the revised timetable.” Again, the Cocoa Coalition said it was “firmly opposed to reopening negotiations on the content” of the law. 

In the final hours before the vote, scheduled for tomorrow around 11 a.m., the groups seek for a last-minute agreement. Nor can it be ruled out that they may eventually decide to postpone the vote on postponement.