The European Union on 25 September seemingly turned down appeals from the World Trade Organization\u2019s Director-General as well as several countries, including the United States, to delay the implementation regulation on deforestation-free products, which is slated to come into effect on 30 December 2024.<\/p>\n
At a meeting of the WTO\u2019s Committee on Agriculture on 25 September, the EU appears to have rebuffed calls from the Director General, Ms Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, several industrialized countries such as the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, and some developing countries, including Indonesia and some from South America, to delay the implementation of the unilateral deforestation regulation.<\/p>\n
The EU said that it will press ahead with its proposed regulation on \u201cdeforestation-free\u201d products to address deforestation and forest degradation, or breaches of local environmental and social laws.<\/p>\n
Members raised several questions on the EU\u2019s proposed regulation.<\/p>\n
Indonesia sought clarity on several aspects surrounding the EU\u2019s country benchmarking system. An Indonesian official said that his country is an archipelago with more than 17,000 islands. \u201cIf each marking is based region-wise, when one region is mislabeled as high-risk, will other commodities in that region be considered high-risk? If it is commodity-based, will the label of a particular commodity in one region also apply to that particular commodity from other regions?\u201d<\/p>\n
The EU, however, declared that it would \u201cget everything ready for a smooth implementation of the regulation.\u201d The EU claimed that it would use scientific data for the classification of high-risk and low-risk countries. Brussels maintained that the regulation is consistent with the WTO rules.<\/p>\n
Several countries including the US, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, India, Indonesia, Paraguay, and Ecuador among others raised several questions, requesting the EU to provide more clarification on its deforestation and forest degradation strategy.<\/p>\n
In document G\/AG\/W\/249, the US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand said that while they share \u201cthe EU\u2019s desire to address global deforestation, and to halt and reverse global forest loss,\u201d they are \u201cdeeply concerned about the significant impact that the implementation of this regulation will have on global trade, and the high compliance burden it places on countries and producers whose systems are not linked to deforestation.\u201d<\/p>\n
The US, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand maintained that \u201cit is our firm view that this is not the most trade facilitative approach to achieve the objective of protecting global forests.\u201d<\/p>\n
India raised several questions, noting that \u201cthe EU deforestation regulation (EUDR) entails due diligence procedures including the certification for deforestation-free production of the covered commodities.\u201d<\/p>\n
New Delhi asked whether the EU could \u201cclarify if its regulation is intended to eventually replace the existing certification schemes in the export countries\u201d.<\/p>\n
India also asked that \u201cgiven the existing uncertainties regarding EUDR\u2019s implementation procedures, is the EU considering reassessing the measure or postponing its entry into force\u201d<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
The European Union on 25 September seemingly turned down appeals from the World Trade Organization\u2019s Director-General as well as several countries, including the United States, to delay the implementation regulation on deforestation-free products, which is slated to come into effect … Continue reading