On 19 April, the European Parliament has adopted in plenary the provisional agreement on a “Regulation on making available on the Union market as well as export from the Union of certain commodities and products associated with deforestation and forest degradation” (EUDR) with a strong majority of 552 votes for, to 44 against, and 43 abstentions. The EUDR still has to be officially endorsed by the Council and needs to be published in the Official Journal of the EU before it can enter into force 20 days later.

While the co-legislators have improved several aspects of the Commission’s proposal for the EUDR, the practical implementation of many fundamental aspects remains unclear.

As highlighted in previous CEPF statements on the co-legislators’ positions (see linked below), in the view of European forest owners, the following amendments improve the Regulation compared to the proposal:

• Deletion of the undefined term ‘sustainable harvesting operations’ and use of terms already defined by the FAO
• Exemptions for small operators (e.g. no requirement for annual reporting, or to carry out internal audits)
• Limitations of delegated acts allowing more long-term certainty and ensuring that substantial amendments to the EUDR follow the ordinary legislative procedure
• Introduction of an 18 months deadline for the Commission to finalise the country benchmarking coupled with the date of entry into force of the new obligations (24 months for small enterprises, 18 months for all others)

However, the agreed text still leaves much room for interpretation of its correct and adequate implementation. As next step, the Commission should work out, together with relevant stakeholders, clear and practical guidance documents that will create legal certainty for operators to fulfil the new requirements.

For European forest owners, two aspects specifically will need to be explained to be best implemented: the concept of ‘forest degradation’ and the requirement for geo-location. 

The Regulation defines 'forest degradation' as conversion between forest types. In this context, it should be emphasised that the identification of the correct forest type is not always easy, mainly as it can be difficult to identify whether old trees were planted or naturally regenerated. Furthermore, changes of forest types do not only occur due to human intervention, but also as an effect of changing climatic conditions. Considering forest management operations as forest degradation in these cases would not only harm forest owners but also put the achievement of the EUDR’s goals at risk.

Furthermore, the requirement for geolocation needs further clarification. Specifically, the required level of detail of geographical accuracy and granularity of harvesting times remain unclear. To ensure that the geo-location requirement can truly contribute to fairer competition and minimisation of deforestation, the Commission will need to point out pragmatic ways for implementation and provide enough legal certainty for operators. However, not only geo-location requirements, but also traceability of deforestation and forest degradation may turn out rather challenging. While large scale deforestation, taking the form of conversion from forest to agricultural land use might be possible to detect with satellite monitoring, this is certainly not the case for forest degradation and its various human induced and natural causes.

Finally, European forest owners would like to highlight the need to monitor the impacts of the EUDR in the first years of its implementation. Particular attention should be paid to the impact on small operators, as they will potentially face the greatest difficulties in implementing new burdens. Within the framework of the planned review clauses in the EUDR, consideration should be given to the opportunity of amending aspects of the Regulation to reduce burden for operators and especially smallholders, if this proves to be necessary.

The European Parliament’s press release with more information on the vote can be found here.

CEPF’s press release on the Council’s general approach can be found here.

CEPF’s statement on the Parliament’s position can be found here.