Editor's note: Enrico Partiti
is Assistant Professor of Transnational Regulation and Governance at Tilburg
University and Associate Fellow at the Asser Institute. His expertise centres
on European and international economic law, sustainability and supply chain
regulation. In particular, he studies how private standard-setters and
corporations regulate globally sustainability and human rights
Upcoming Event: Fighting global deforestation through due diligence: towards an EU regulation on forest and ecosystem risk commodities? - 4 November 2020 - 16:00 (CET) - Register Here!
The recent vote in the
Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI) Committee of the European
Parliament on binding legislation to stop EU-driven global deforestation is a
watershed moment in the global fight against deforestation, ecosystem
conversion and associated human rights violations. The ENVI Committee report, that will
soon be voted by the plenary, requests the Commission (as provided in Art. 225
TFEU) to table a legislative proposal for a measure disciplining the placing on
the EU market of products associated to forest and ecosystem conversion and
degradation, as well as violations of indigenous communities’ human rights. The
Parliament’s initiative takes place in a policy context increasingly concerned
with deforestation, in the framework of a Commission Communication on stepping up
EU action to protect and restore the world’s forests which left a door open for
legislative intervention.
The proposed
measure would aim to severe the economic link between demand of agricultural commodities, especially by
large consumers markets, and negative environmental impacts - including on
climate change. Beef, soy and palm oil alone are responsible for 80% of
tropical deforestation, and consequent CO2 emissions. In 2014, EU demand was
responsible for 41% of global imports of beef, 25% of palm oil and 15% of soy,
as well as large shares of other commodities at high risk for forests and
ecosystems such as such as maize (30%), cocoa (80%), coffee (60%), and rubber
(25%). Protecting just forests is not sufficient, as it risks to displace
conversion to other non-forests ecosystems such as the Brazilian cerrado. In
light of their negative impact on both forests and other natural
ecosystems, such commodities have been labeled as forest and ecosystem risks
commodities (FERCs). More...
Between 2010 and 2015, 7.6 million hectares of
forests were lost every year. Deforestation not only causes immense
biodiversity loss, but it also has extremely negative repercussions on
climate change. Hence, deforestation is one of the world’s most pressing
global challenges.
This online event will discuss the EU Parliament’s new
initiative to tackle deforestation. It will examine the initiative’s
substance, possible implications for fighting deforestation across the
globe, and possible means for enforcement and their challenges, as well
as its impact on EU obligations under international (trade) law.
Background
Research has shown that agricultural production is a
major driver of deforestation. The majority of global tree cover loss
between 2000 and 2015 was caused by agricultural production, and another
quarter was due to forestry activities. Furthermore, a large proportion
of forest clearance occurs in breach of local legal and administrative
requirements. However, only half of the total tropical deforestation
between 2000 and 2012 was caused by illegal conversion. Weak enforcement
of forest laws in certain countries further compounds the problem of
relying on legality as a meaningful threshold to stop conversion for
agricultural purposes, especially where political leaders wilfully
reduce law enforcement and conservation efforts to favour agribusiness.
To tackle these closely intertwined concerns, the EU
is in the process of enhancing its policies on global deforestation
linked to EU imports. In addition to the existent Timber Regulation,
assessing the legality of timber origin, and the Renewable Energy
Directive, establishing sustainability requirements for biofuel crops,
the EU is considering several regulatory and non-regulatory
interventions. Among the most profound measures, the EU Parliament is about to approve a ground-breaking Resolution
that will require the Commission to propose an EU Regulation ensuring
that only agricultural commodities and derived products that are not
linked to deforestation, ecosystem conversion and associated human
rights violations are marketed in the EU. Building on the Timber
Regulation and human rights due diligence responsibilities as prescribed
in the United Nation Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights,
the proposal would require economic operators to implement the
obligation via non-financial due diligence ensuring that products do not
originate from converted forests and ecosystems, regardless of the
legality of land-use conversion.
Speakers
-
Delara Burkhardt,
European Parliament’s Rapporteur for a Motion for an EU Parliament
Resolution with recommendations to the Commission on an EU legal
framework to halt and reverse EU-driven global deforestation (her draft
report is available here).
-
Andrea Carta, Senior legal strategist at Greenpeace, EU Unit
-
Enrico Partiti, Assistant professor in transnational regulation and governance, Tilburg University
-
Meriam Wortel, Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority
The discussion will be moderated by Antoine Duval, Senior researcher at the Asser Institute and coordinator of the ‘Doing business right’ project.
Click here to register for this online discussion.
Editor’s note:
Wybe Th. Douma is senior researcher in EU law and international trade law at the
Asser Institute
Although the
placing of illegally harvested timber on the EU internal market is prohibited
already for over four years, the first court cases are appearing only now.
Judges in Sweden and The Netherlands have recently held that the due diligence
requirements of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) had not been met by two
importing companies. The companies should have ensured that the timber from Myanmar
and Cameroon was logged in compliance with the local legislation, should have
provided extensive evidence of this, especially where the countries in question
are prone to corruption and governance challenges, and should have adopted risk
mitigation measures. Moreover, another Dutch court recently ordered the Dutch
competent authorities to explain why they did not enforce the EUTR in cases
where due diligence requirements concerning timber imported from Brazil were
not met. In other EU member states, similar court decisions were adopted.[1]
The court
decisions show that the EUTR system, aimed at ‘doing business right’ in the
timber trade sector, is starting to take effect in practice. Could the ‘unilateral’
EUTR system form an example for other regimes that try to ensure that trade by
the EU with the rest of the world contributes to sustainable development and the
protection of human rights? And what role does the bilateral Voluntary
Partnership Agreement (VPA) on Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade
(FLEGT) between the EU and Indonesia play in this respect? More...