Backlash grows over Europe’s anti-deforestation law
- In Reports
- 06:17 PM, Sep 23, 2024
- Myind Staff
European Union has taken the lead globally in climate change in terms of enacting ground-breaking laws to cut harmful greenhouse gas emissions. The world is now retaliating. To convince EU officials to revoke a historic environmental law that aims to protect the planet's endangered forests by tracking supply chains, government representatives and business associations from all over the world have increased their lobbying efforts in recent months.
The regulations, which are set to go into force at the end of the year, will have an impact on traded goods worth billions of dollars. Southeast Asian, Latin American, and African nations have denounced them as "discriminatory and punitive". The Biden administration in the US requested a postponement after American paper companies expressed concern that the bill might cause sanitary pad and diaper shortages in Europe. China declared in July that it would not comply, citing "security concerns" as the reason for not sharing the required data.
This past week, the chorus grew larger. The president of the European Commission was asked to delay the upcoming deforestation regulations by members of the Brazilian cabinet, the director-general of the World Trade Organization, and even German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, who leads the largest economy among the 27 members of the European Union. The outcry highlights the painful challenges of moving forward with a matter that almost everyone agrees is urgent: safeguarding the world's population from catastrophic climate change. Many thousands of animals are at risk of extinction due to the widespread, frequently illegal destruction of tropical forests and woodlands, which also increases soil erosion and flooding and adds to the buildup of carbon emissions and rising temperatures.
Following years of discussion, legislators decided to outlaw in 2023 all goods made from the seven main commodities that are grown on recently cleared forest land: wood, rubber, soybeans, palm oil, cattle, cocoa, coffee, and soybean oil. As a result, there are now regulations governing almost everything you use in your home, put on your body, or eat—from soap to instant noodles and living room couches. Trader penalties are severe. The idea behind the law was that it would serve as a catalyst for similar laws to be passed in other countries, including the US, China, India, and Japan.
Certain nations have monitoring systems in place already. For over fifteen years, Uruguay and Argentina have been tracking cattle. Ghana, one of the biggest cocoa exporters in the world, has so far mapped 1.2 million farms and announced that it will begin tracking cocoa beans from farms to ships the following month.
The United Nations Development Program, which has held compliance workshops, observed that a number of nations, including Vietnam and Peru, were setting up certification systems.
The authorities, farmers, and trade associations from all over the world have expressed dissatisfaction with the law, claiming that it is practically hard for businesses to map every square foot of farmland and determine the provenance of each and every soybean and wood chip. Agriculture ministers in 20 nations, including Austria, France, Italy, and Sweden, are said to have requested a postponement even inside the European Union.
Developing countries are protesting that regulations affecting their economies are being dictated by former colonial powers. Small farmers are concerned that the expense of compliance may drive them out of Business. The governments of lower- and middle-class countries contend that the law is just another instance of how they are footing the bill for climate damage, which is primarily the result of wealthier, more developed countries. Politicians in the US and Europe are reacting to voters who are fed up with growing expenses and red tape.
Farmers' protests throughout Europe this year have forced European leaders to reduce their ambitions for climate change and weaken other regulations. While the challenges are real, proponents of the current schedule assert that they are manageable. They also contend that the costs of waiting are higher. The consequences of inaction are "already being felt within the EU through worsening droughts and forest fires," a coalition of 170 environmental and human rights organizations wrote in a letter to Ursula von der Leyen, the European Commission's president, opposing any postponement.
A number of small farmers back the law despite the possibility that large mills and refiners fearing fines would drop them. Numerous farmer and civil society organisations in Brazil, Indonesia, and the Ivory Coast, for example, have contended that the regulations would contribute to a more transparent and equitable supply chain.
By and large a majority of stakeholders like business associations and nongovernmental organizations, "showed strong support for legally binding options," like deforestation-free requirements, mandatory due diligence and public certification.
A representative of the European Commission stated that any changes to the legislation would require approval by the legislature.
Comments