(Brussels) – The European Parliament should reject proposed amendments to the European Union’s Deforestation-Free Products Regulation (EUDR), Human Rights Watch said today. The regulation requires companies in EU countries to ensure that the wood, oil palm, soy, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and cattle they export or import have been produced in conditions that respect human rights and local laws, and that were farmed on land that was not deforested after 2020.
The amendments were proposed by Christine Schneider of the European People’s Party on November 7, 2024. They include delaying the date when the regulation would enter into force by two years, excluding traders from the regulation’s obligations, and creating a “no risk” category in the risk benchmarking process. The “no risk” category would effectively operate as a loophole shielding businesses from scrutiny of their deforestation record. A vote is expected on November 14, 2024.
“The anti-deforesting regulation is a landmark piece of legislation that required considerable study, negotiation, and compromise, and was adopted after an extensive impact assessment,” said Myrto Tilianaki, senior environmental advocate at Human Rights Watch. “Delaying its implementation would be terrible news for climate-critical forests as well as the human rights of workers and forest-dependent communities, and these additional amendments strike at the heart of its integrity; they are simply unacceptable.”
If implemented in its current version, the regulation will curb global deforestation and rights abuses associated with EU consumption.
The regulation entered into force in 2023 and originally required companies to start complying on December 30, 2024. On October 2, the European Commission put forth a legislative proposal to delay enforcement by 12 months for large companies and 18 months for small and micro enterprises, triggering a process that also allows lawmakers to introduce other amendments. One of the proposed amendments suggests extending the deadline for the regulation entering into force to two years.
In recent weeks, over 50 companies have criticized the commission’s decision to delay the regulation as it creates uncertainty. These companies urged the EU to uphold the law’s current substance, noting that many have already made efforts with a view to complying with the new rules. The delay would mean that laggards would be accommodated while companies that have sought to align with the new rules by investing in more due diligence measures will be at a disadvantage, Human Rights Watch said.
One of the regulation’s critical elements is the risk benchmarking system, which would allow EU member states to focus their enforcement efforts on countries where risks of noncompliance are high. It requires the European Commission to designate areas as “low, standard, or high risk” for deforestation and forest degradation. Customs officials will be required to carry out triple the checks on relevant merchandise originating from high-risk areas when they arrive or depart EU shores (EU member states will also be benchmarked).
Yet, a proposed amendment calls for the creation of an additional “no risk” category. The “no risk” areas would not have to demonstrate that their products are deforestation-free in their due diligence statements. Effectively, a “no risk” designation would operate as a loophole allowing commodities from such areas to be placed in the EU market without the necessary checks.
Finally, traders are subject to due diligence and traceability requirements under the current version of the regulation, but one of the tabled amendments calls to exclude them from the regulation’s obligations. This could significantly weaken the regulation’s effectiveness. Large traders, such as multinational supermarket chains, play a significant role in sourcing and distributing these commodities worldwide, often controlling supply chains across countries and continents. Excluding traders could allow commodities from deforested areas to potentially enter EU markets, undermining the regulation’s purpose.
“Revising the EUDR not only penalizes companies that are prepared to comply, but would also undermine the regulation’s effectiveness at curbing deforestation and human rights violations in the supply chains of products widely sold in Europe,” Tilianaki said. “The European Parliament should reject the proposed amendments rather than let the regulation be watered down to the point at which it won’t tackle the EU’s enormous footprint in the world’s forests.”
