VERSAILLES, France, March 10 (Reuters) – European Union leaders on Thursday condemned the “untold suffering” Russia was inflicting on Ukraine, but at a summit in France they refused a call from Kiev to early membership in the bloc and differed on the scope of sanctions against Moscow.

The Russian invasion – the biggest assault on a European state since World War II – has upended the European security order and prompted EU capitals to rethink what the bloc should represent, its economic policies, defense and energetic.

The EU was quick to impose sweeping sanctions and offer political and humanitarian support to Ukraine, as well as arms supplies, in the days following Russia’s February 24 attack.

However, cracks have appeared in the bloc’s united front, from its reaction to Kiev’s demand for fast-track membership of the wealthy club to how quickly it can wean itself off Russian fossil fuels and how best to shape a economic response.

“No one joined the European Union overnight,” Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic said as talks between the 27 national leaders ended in the wee hours of Friday.

Leaders’ chairman Charles Michel said in a show of sympathy and moral support: “Ukraine belongs to the European family.”

But others have made it clear that Ukraine will not be allowed to join in a rush, something Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy has called for and which enjoys the support of Ukraine’s neighbors on the EU’s eastern flank.

“There is no fast-track process,” said Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte, a prominent opponent of EU enlargement, while adding that the bloc would continue to deepen its ties with Kyiv.

The door to membership could not be closed either, said French President Emmanuel Macron.

“Can we open an accession procedure with a country at war? I don’t think so. Can we close the door and say: ‘never’? That would be unfair. Can we forget the balance points in this region? ? Let’s be careful.”

Joining the EU is a process that usually takes years and requires meeting strict criteria ranging from economic stability to the eradication of corruption to liberal respect for human rights.

RUSSIAN OIL AND GAS

The invasion of Russia, which Moscow calls a special military operation, shattered the post-war European security order that emerged from the ashes of World War II and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. .

More than 2 million people have fled the country, thousands of civilians have been killed and Russian President Vladimir Putin’s troops have besieged several Ukrainian towns. Read more

“It’s a war crime,” Roberta Metsola, president of the European Parliament, told leaders.

Some EU leaders have pushed for tougher sanctions that would hit Russia’s oil and gas industries, even if it meant repercussions for European nations dependent on Russian fossil fuels.

Latvian Prime Minister Krisjanis Karins, whose country shares a border with Russia, said cutting off Russian oil and gas would be the most effective way to bring Putin to the negotiating table.

“We should go much further and much faster,” Karins said.

German Chancellor Olaf Scholz has not commented on whether the bloc should ban imports of Russian oil, something Berlin has ruled out so far. Russia supplies about a third of Germany’s gas and crude needs.

But the EU should stop using Russian fossil fuels by 2027, von der Leyen said, adding that it would come up with a roadmap for that in mid-May.

Leaders resume at 09:00 GMT on Friday to discuss policy on tackling war-related defense and energy spending in Ukraine. Divisions have emerged over the possibility of a new joint EU debt issuance, advocated by countries such as France and Italy but opposed by Germany, the Netherlands and others. Read more

“The war in Ukraine is an immense trauma… But it is also most certainly something that will lead us to completely redefine the structure of Europe,” Macron said.

Reporting by Jan Strupczewski, Michel Rose, Juliette Jabkhiro, Richard Lough, Philip Blenkinsop, Marine Strauss, Andreas Rinke, Sabine Siebold and Benoit van Overstraeten; Written by Gabriela Baczynska and Richard Lough; Editing by Gareth Jones and Rosalba O’Brien

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

The European Parliament has, by a large majority, adopted a resolution calling on the European Commission to take action to withhold funds from member states that fail to respect the rule of law. The document names Hungary and Poland as particular offenders.

The resolution was condemned by Poland’s ruling Law and Justice (PiS) party, which unsuccessfully proposed an amendment calling for the rule of law mechanism not to be applied due to the war in Ukraine and the the pandemic. He also called on the EU to immediately release Covid recovery funds that have been blocked for rule of law reasons.

In the resolution adopted today – with 478 votes in favor and 155 against – the European Parliament welcomed the recent decision of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to reject an attempt by Poland and Hungary to prevent that EU funds are conditional on respect for the rule of law.

The parliament said it was now “high time” for the European Commission to “react to the continued breaches of the rule of law in some EU member states, which constitute a danger to the financial interests of the Union European”.

It asks the Commission to initiate the use of the conditionality mechanism by notifying the Member States concerned in writing. The measures should apply to both the EU’s general budget and the EU’s Covid recovery plan, the parliament said.

Among Polish MEPs, those from The Left (Lewica), Poland’s second largest opposition group, voted in favor of the resolution while those from the Civic Platform (PO), the largest, abstained. PiS MPs voted against.

The PiS has long opposed the conditionality mechanism, saying it would be used for political purposes to punish certain member states. The timing is particularly inappropriate to use it, argues the PiS, given the EU’s need for unity amid the war in Ukraine and the resulting refugee crisis.

“The Russians bombed a maternity ward in Mariupol. Meanwhile, Germany is blocking further sanctions against Russia and the European Parliament is voting in favor of sanctions against Poland,” PiS MP Sylwester Tułajew tweeted.

Yesterday, the European Conservatives and Reformists – a group in which the PiS is the dominant force – tabled an amendment calling for the rule of law mechanism not to be applied due to the war in Ukraine and the pandemic. He also called on the EU to release Covid funds, which have been frozen for Poland due to rule of law concerns.

After the rejection of this amendment, its author, MP PiS Bogdan Rzońca, said that “the left-liberal European Parliament has shown Putin that there is no solidarity within the EU and that it can harass and scare countries bordering Ukraine”, reports TVP Info.

He also accused Polish opposition parties of ‘not wanting the money to go to local authorities [in Poland] who are now helping refugees from Ukraine”.

PO – who voted against the amendment but abstained on the resolution – “agrees that this time of war is not the time for such resolutions”, said MEP Andrzej Halicki, quoted by TVN24. However, he also called on the PiS government to “end the [rule-of-law] dispute as soon as possible” in order to release EU funds.

Robert Biedroń, MEP and one of the leaders of The Left, said his group supported the resolution because “respect for the law, including the right to an independent tribunal that is not influenced by politicians , is a fundamental freedom…[and] the basis of the values ​​for which Ukrainian soldiers are dying today”.

Like Halicki, he also called on the PiS to release the funds by reversing its judicial policies. “In these times, you have to put aside unnecessary political arguments and do the right thing,” Biedroń told PAP. “The interest of 38 million Poles and more than 40 million Ukrainians is greater than the interest of a few politicized judges.”

Main image credit: KPRP (under public domain)

The EU’s 5th list of Projects of Common Interest (PCI), to be voted on this week in the European Parliament, is to be revised to include “Russian scrutiny” ensuring that energy projects that receive EU priority status increase our independence from Russia gas, write a group of MEPs.

The opinion piece below is signed by 7 MEPs from the centrist Renew Europe political group in the European Parliament (full list below).

In the current context of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, at a time when the European Union intends to accelerate and strengthen its energy independence and when Russian gas represents 40% of our gas supply and 27% of crude oil imports of the EU, the question of the choice of European investments in energy infrastructures is fundamental for our sovereignty.

It is in this context that the European Parliament is voting this week on the 5th list of Projects of Common Interest (PIC), which contains dozens of gas projects which would represent up to 13 billion euros of investment, of which a important could be European and national public funding.

This 5th list is a list from the past, more relevant for two reasons. It lacks both a climate consistency check and a “Russian check” to ensure the list is fit for the purpose of increasing our independence from Russia.

Concerning climate coherence first. Within this 5th PCI list, none of the gas projects have demonstrated their alignment with the Paris Agreement or with our objective of climate neutrality by 2050 at the latest. This essential step, the climatic stress test, is not a wish, but a requirement of the Climate Law. The Commission must ensure that all its legislative proposals are compatible with our climate commitments, and if it does not, we are left with huge gaps.

Indeed, according to an analysis published by Global Witness in October 2020, if the East Med gas pipeline between Cyprus and Greece were to operate at full capacity until 2050, the gas it would transport could produce more gas emissions annually than greenhouse effect than France, Spain and Italy. combined emissions during the same period. This is without counting the Melita pipeline on the list, the construction of which would supply a power plant tainted with suspicions linked to the murder of the Maltese journalist: Daphne Caruana Galizia. How can we plan to use the European budget in these circumstances?

Europe is at a tipping point where we have the political choice to redouble our efforts and accelerate the green transition while ensuring EU resilience. This acceleration will require massive additional investments if we are to achieve much higher energy efficiency targets, massively deploy European renewable energy sources and develop a truly interconnected smart grid. Let’s start by giving the right signal, let’s double the investments on these essential technologies for a successful green transition. Every euro will count, let’s not waste money!

Secondly, in addition to not demonstrating climate coherence, the gas projects on the list have not demonstrated that they strengthen our independence from Russia and do not facilitate the transit of Russian gas through our Union . This assessment must be made by the Commission, both to avoid aggravating our dependence but also to allocate the European budget to projects deemed to be priorities given this new situation caused by the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Resilience and strategic autonomy are essential!

We therefore ask the Commission to review this list from the past. And to ensure that, if certain gas projects are to be included, they must both meet Green Deal requirements and increase our independence from Russia. Failure to meet either of these two conditions will only make us go from one addiction to the other more quickly.

Last week in the European Parliament, following developments in Ukraine, we agreed to accelerate the transition to clean energy and increase energy efficiency to break out of Russian dependence. Now we have to deliver. And it starts this week with objecting the 5th list of Projects of Common Interest.

Signatories:

• Pascal Canfin
• Claudia Gamon
• Christopher Grudler
• Martin Hojsik
• Sophie In’t Veld
• Morten Helveg Pertersen
• Michael Wiezik

On December 9, 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal for legislative initiative on the working conditions of platform workers. On the same day, he also offered a series of Guidelines this would redefine the scope of European competition law in order to allow collective bargaining between self-employed workers. In the meantime, the Artificial Intelligence (AI) Act has also been making its way through the legislative pipeline for nearly a year.

These initiatives came after years of intense discussions between experts and policymakers on the disruptive impact of digital platforms and AI on the world of work, both in terms of working conditions and labor market transformation.

However, with these proposals, it is conceivable that the digital transition will also prove to be an opportunity to launch broader constructive reflection on how to ensure the future resilience of labor rights. And, just as significantly, the Commission seems to have realized the importance of approaching this reflection from a multidimensional perspective. The direction taken is certainly promising. But how far is the wind of change blowing?

Platform work and AI regulation

The first dimension through which the Commission approaches digitization is the regulation of platform economy. The draft directive intervenes in the rich debate on the correct classification of platform workers as “employees” or “self-employed” and aims to clarify this issue. The proposed legislation introduces, where specific criteria are met, a presumption of employment status that would help to correct the platforms’ evasive strategies regarding the application of national employment and social protection systems.

This initiative would undoubtedly grant more dignity to platform workers and, at the same time, hold platforms accountable for their social responsibility.

However, it could have gone even further. The directive risks covering only these platforms this to organise work carried out by individuals (Article 2), thus potentially excluding certain crowdworkers. Furthermore, more needs to be done to decouple workers’ access to labor rights from the “subordination vs. autonomy” dichotomy.

Perhaps it is time to recognize that the future of workers’ rights lies in the abandonment of this dualism in favor of a plus universalist approach.

This could be done, for example, by extending the recognition of labor rights to all cases of algorithmic management. The proposal already establishes that in the presence of automated decision-making, a series of rights must be conferred on all workers on the platform regardless of their status (a right to transparency on the system deployed; a right to information and consultation of worker representatives; a right to monitoring of automated mechanisms by human rights; measures to prevent health and safety risks; and data protection rights). Nevertheless, a paradigm shift has not yet been achieved since the rights to employment and social protection remain linked to the existence of an employment relationship.

This brings us to the Commission’s approach AI and automated decision making: the second dimension through which the EU approaches the digital transition in the world of work. The Commission seems to have realized the potentially harmful effect of AI applications on workers’ rights. According to the proposed AI law, AI systems used in a work-related context are considered “high risk” and therefore must undergo a specific ex ante compliance assessment. And, as mentioned, the draft directive on platform workers reinforces these guarantees by assigning a series of rights in the case of algorithmic management.

However, both the proposed AI law and the draft directive do not provide strong enough safeguards. In one case (the AI ​​law), the standards are not strict enough because they are mainly based on self-assessment procedures; and, in the other (the proposal for a directive), the scope is still too narrow since it only concerns platform workers.

There is therefore a need to open an institutional debate in order to address in a more comprehensive way the risks that AI applications pose to all workers and to do so in a way that better integrates labor rights with labor law. of data protection, with existing non-discrimination instruments and with ad hoc and stricter rules on product liability and product standardization in mind.

Monopsonist firms and political will

The Commission has also demonstrated its awareness of the need to intervene in a third dimension, namely the emergence of companies with extraordinarily strong entrepreneurial power.

The digital transition enables monopsonies in the labor market, created when few companies (or only one) “buy labour”. These monopsonist employers, of which Amazon is a prime example, are therefore able to drive down labor costs and cause a general deterioration in working conditions across entire industries and production sectors.

By recognizing the right of the self-employed to collectively bargain their working conditions, the Commission is taking a positive step to limit the excessive bargaining powerof these “super companies”.

The scope of the guidelines is quite broad, since it covers all self-employed persons who are first of all in a “situation comparable to that of workers”, i.e. those who draw at least 50 cent of their total annual income related to the work of a single entity, those who work “side by side” with workers and those who work via digital work platforms. It also covers those who are in a “weak negotiating position vis-à-vis their counterparts and [who] may therefore be unable to significantly influence their working conditions”. This covers those who provide services to entrepreneurs of a certain economic strength who represent an entire sector or industry, or who have a cumulative annual turnover of more than 2 million euros or a workforce of more than 10 workers ( individually or jointly). It also covers all self-employed self-employed persons authorized to bargain collectively under national or EU law.

However, the scope of this initiative could be much wider. It should also be noted that the single self-employed workers described above are simply considered to fall outside the Commission’s enforcement priorities, while remaining firmly within the scope of Article 101 TFEU (unlike self-employed who are in a “situation comparable to workers”, who are designated as outside its scope).

The Draft Guidelines therefore appear to indulge in a classic and undesirable (timid) regulatory fallacy, whereby greater personal scope tends to be correlated with diminishing returns in terms of substantive rights and protections afforded. Hardly a paradigm shift and a movement towards universalism, as also noted by the European Trade Union Confederation.

Moreover, Recital 16 of the Guidelines is quite problematic, as the Commission considers de facto that the exercise of the right to strike by the self-employed “may raise competition concerns” and, therefore, should be subject to a test of proportionality. A memory of Regulation Monti IIdifficult to reconcile with International Labor Organization Convention 87.

The digital transition has accelerated the labor law crisis but, at the same time, it offers the opportunity to open a debate on the reorientation, or even progress, of labor law. EU policymakers have approached a crossroads. The Commission’s proposals have the great merit of creating momentum, previous the initiatives of many national legislators. At the same time, these initiatives could take workers’ rights even more into account.

The policy-making process has just started: the directive on platform workers will have to be discussed, amended and only then finally adopted, after discussion in the European Parliament and by national governments in the Council, while the guidelines on competition law are at the advisory stage. The direction that will be taken will reveal the real political will of the EU institutions and whether it is strong enough to prevent workers’ rights from being (once again) sacrificed on the altar of market forces and powerful actors. companies.

European Union flags are seen outside the European Commission headquarters in Brussels, Belgium November 14, 2018. REUTERS/Francois Lenoir

BRUSSELS, Feb 23 (Reuters) – The European Commission on Wednesday proposed a law requiring big companies operating in the EU to verify that their suppliers around the world meet environmental standards and do not use slaves or child labor .

The Sustainability Due Diligence Act will also require directors of European Union companies to ensure that their business strategy aligns with limiting global warming to 1.5 Celsius, as agreed in the framework of the Paris climate agreement.

“We can no longer turn a blind eye to what is happening along our value chains,” said EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders.

According to the proposal, EU companies will have to assess their supply chains at least once a year and before making major business decisions or starting new activities, for risks such as forced labour, children, inadequate workplace safety and environmental impacts such as pollution and ecosystem degradation.

If a company identifies such problems, it must take appropriate measures to prevent or stop them, for example by developing a corrective action plan that the supplier must agree to follow.

The Commission’s proposal will only become EU law after lengthy negotiations with the European Parliament and EU governments that will likely take more than a year.

It would apply to around 13,000 businesses in the EU, including the biggest businesses in the EU – those that employ more than 500 people and have a net turnover of more than €150 million.

Companies in high-impact sectors such as apparel, animals, forestry, food and beverage, and fossil fuel and metal mining are also covered if they have more than 250 employees and €40 million of net turnover.

Yet this means that 99% of European companies would be exempt.

EU lawmaker Lara Wolters, who led a parliament report last year calling for the law, welcomed the proposal but said small businesses in high-risk sectors could still contribute to abuse and should be covered. Read more

The law would also apply to around 4,000 companies outside the EU, but whose operations within the EU meet the turnover thresholds.

Compliance would be monitored by the governments of the 27 EU member states. Companies that ignore the law face fines.

EU companies could also be held liable for damages if their suppliers commit an infringement that could have been avoided or stopped through due diligence measures taken by the EU company.

Reporting by Kate Abnett; Editing by Andrea Ricci

Our standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.

EU and Member State legislators should find common ground in order to reach an agreement. According to this agreement, a common charger pin is considered for different electronic gadgets such as mobile phones, tablets, tabs and even headphones. The European Union looks forward to finalizing this deal by the end of 2022. However, tech giant Apple, which is also the maker of the iPhone, strongly opposes this deal.

This is not the first time that the European Commission has had to raise this issue. The last time the common charger was discussed was over a decade ago. But this time, the commission decided to push this issue forward after smartphone makers and other electronic gadget companies couldn’t wrap things up on the same platform.

Android and iPhone users have complained about the issues they face for having different pins for charging. iPhone is charged with lightning cord while for Android users they are divided into USB C charger as well as micro B charger.

According to Alex Agius Saliba, a European Union lawmaker and the figurehead of the whole deal in the European Parliament, expressed hope, believing that the assembly will vote against the proposal. This will allow Alex to initiate this discussion with the countries of the European Union so that they can finalize the agreement.

In an interview with Reuters, an international news agency, Alex agreed that it was possible to confirm the deal by the end of the current year. Alex further added that focusing only on smartphones is like giving up on an opportunity, and so his goal is to bring other gadgets such as e-readers, low-power laptops, earbuds and smart watches to have the same charger as well.

By 2025, Alex wants the European Commission to also balance the wireless charging system. However, the European Union has been informed by Apple that following the agreement for a common charger will lead to electronic waste after users will have no choice but to adapt to the new chargers.

Read next: Study shows global average download speeds increased almost everywhere thanks to 5G

European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen said on Wednesday that Europe could survive Russia’s pressure on EU gas supplies thanks to an unprecedented diversification of sources in recent weeks.

“Our models show, with all the measures we have taken, that we are now on the right side for this winter,” Von der Leyen told a session of the European Parliament in Strasbourg, eastern France.

Moscow provides a significant share of Europe’s natural gas, and the Ukraine crisis has fueled fears of a potential energy crisis if Russia decides to restrict the resource.

In 2021, Russia’s natural gas was about 38% of that used by the European Union, according to a Brussels-based economic think tank Bruegel.

Moscow has already reduced its gas flows to Europe – Russia reduced its gas exports by 23% in the last quarter of 2021 compared to data for the previous year, according to the International Energy Agency.

If Russia halts exports of its gas, European countries would have to find other suppliers, probably through imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) from other countries.

Last week, Japan announced it would divert some of the country’s LNG supplies to Europe after receiving requests from the EU and the United States.

However, global liquefaction capacity is almost fully utilized, in addition to LNG carriers, which significantly limits the amount of additional LNG volumes that can come to the global market, Bruegel Explain.

The European Parliament is preparing to launch a commission of inquiry into the Pegasus spyware scandal after evidence emerged that government critics in Poland and Hungary were being targeted by the surveillance software.

The cross-party body will seek testimony from member states’ intelligence services, elected politicians and senior civil servants, with a previous investigation into Europe’s alleged facilitation of CIA ‘black sites’ providing a template.

The decision is the most significant so far since Brussels since a group of media organisations, including the Guardian, revealed that Pegasus software was being used against journalists, activists and politicians in numerous countries around the world. , including in Europe.

This follows the Israeli government’s announcement this week that it would investigate reports that Israeli police used Pegasus against its citizens. Local media claimed the list of targets included people involved in the corruption trial of former Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Pegasus allows an operator to take control of a target’s mobile device, access all data, even from encrypted messaging apps, and enable audio or video recording.

The investigation by the Guardian and 16 other outlets relied on forensic analysis of phones and a leaked database of 50,000 numbers, including that of French President Emmanuel Macron, European Council President Charles Michel , and other heads of state and senior government, diplomatic and military officials in 34 countries.

The Israeli company that makes the software, NSO Group, previously said the 50,000 figure was “exaggerated” and that the list could not be a list of numbers “targeted by governments using Pegasus”.

Analysis of phones in Europe showed that journalists, activists and lawyers in Hungary had been targeted with Pegasus.

A senior Hungarian government official appeared to confirm in November that the software had been purchased by the state, but this was later denied and ministers have since declined to comment.

Hungarian journalists plan to take legal action against the state and the NSO.

In Poland, a Senate committee saw documents in January suggesting the country’s Central Anti-Corruption Bureau (CBA) purchased Pegasus in 2017 using Justice Ministry funds.

Law and Justice, the main ruling coalition party, boycotted the opposition-led Senate committee.

The European Parliament has launched a committee of inquiry only a few times, and the proposal has already received the required political support from a quarter of MEPs and the approval of political group leaders. It has been pushed by the Renew Europe political group in parliament where Macron’s La République en Marche MEPs sit, and is expected to be formally approved at a plenary session in Strasbourg next week.

Assuming that happens, the committee is expected to sit for 12 months from April, during which it will hold public sessions and seek relevant documents and oral and written testimony.

NSO Group did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the investigation, but in previous responses to the Guardian it said it could not confirm or deny whether particular countries were customers. He also insisted that his tools were only intended for use against criminals and terrorists, and should not be used against dissidents, activists or journalists.

The president of the Renew Europe group, Stéphane Séjourné, declared: “The Pegasus scandal is not only an attack on individual freedoms. It is an attack by autocratic regimes on the essence of our European democracies.

“When software developed to target terrorists is used against opposition politicians by European governments, it is really very serious.

“The scale of the allegations shows why we need a European response and that’s why we have led calls for the European Parliament to launch a tough commission of inquiry, which can consult experts and call witnesses from any Europe.”

Once the committee has completed its investigation, it will table a report for national governments and the European Commission.

“Nothing should be on the table and nothing should be left to chance,” said Séjourné. “We don’t just want information about the scale of the scandal, we want recommendations put on the table by the European Commission and national governments, so that it can never happen again.”

EU Justice Commissioner Didier Reynders told MPs in September that the European Commission had “totally condemned” alleged attempts by national security services to illegally access information about political opponents through their phones.

He said it was already the case, as confirmed by the European Court of Justice, that governments could not “restrict the confidentiality and integrity of communications” except in “very strictly limited” scenarios.

He also said a pending EU privacy regulation would further tighten the rules and called on MPs and member states to urgently agree on the details of the new law in light of the scandal. spyware.

The European Commission’s plan to tackle deforestation associated with certain imported agricultural products was unveiled on November 17, 2021. A third of global deforestation is linked to international trade, and it is estimated that the European Union (plus the UK Uni) has an annual “footprint” of around 200,000 hectares, or 16% of global trade-related deforestation.

The Commission proposal provides that before placing a product on the European market, each company must ensure that it is not linked to a deforested territory after December 31, 2020, by geolocating the plots from which it comes. and by setting up a traceability system. The products concerned are palm oil, soya, cocoa, coffee, beef and wood. Surprisingly, natural rubber from rubber trees is not included, although it is one of the drivers of deforestation, although not the most important.

The cornerstone of this project is the obligation of “due diligence” imposed on importers, i.e. all the checks they must carry out to ensure the origin of the product to be imported, its legality and the conditions of its production, thus reducing the risk of commercialization of products involved in deforestation.

A broad “amnesty” for recent deforestation

One of the main elements of this draft regulation is the mention of a “deforestation deadline” set at 31/12/2020. Concretely, this means that if the conversion of forests took place before this date, they are not considered to be participating in deforestation. The end date of 2020 is more than a compromise, it is the upper limit of a range mentioned by the European Commission (“between 2015 and 2020”) a few months ago.

The European Parliament had voted in 2020 a resolution stipulating that the date of January 1^st, 2015 had to be retained. The date proposed by the Commission is clearly a gesture towards the importing industry (and the producing countries) who were asking for the adoption of a date close to the present. And that “amnesties” a lot of recent deforestation in major producing countries, like Brazil, whereas low-deforestation countries like Gabon that might want to develop their agriculture by clearing now will likely find that they are penalized more.

See related: How do the Glasgow and New York declarations on forests compare?

The thorny question of legal deforestation

The other important point is the adoption of the FAO definition of forests, namely 10% tree cover (excluding oil palms for example) on a minimum area of ​​0.5 hectares. However, many countries have adopted a minimum threshold of 30% tree cover to define forests, ie a narrower definition of forest. By setting a 10% threshold to define zero deforestation products, products considered legal in the country of origin (whose conversion may have involved an ecosystem with, for example, 20% coverage) will be unacceptable to the EU, and, in principle, will not be allowed to be imported. This will create strong trade tensions and possible retaliatory measures (one can think of the sales of Airbus).

The idea of ​​having a single definition of forest for all countries (i.e. the same for Gabon, a country of dense forests, and Burkina Faso, a country of dry and open forests) and all biomes, poses a problem of realism. It would be more appropriate to look at things on a case-by-case basis, or even biome by biome, since some countries have several forest biomes. To move in this direction, it would probably be better for the EU to rely on independent certifications such as the Rainforest Alliance for cocoa, or the Round Table for Sustainable Palm Oil (RSPO) for oil palm, which have recently Adopted the “Zero Deforestation” Criteria.

On the other hand, the adoption of a single threshold of 10% tree cover to define forest risks allows the conversion of many parts of wooded savannahs, such as the Brazilian Cerrado, into soybean fields. Indeed, these savannas rich in biodiversity and rich in carbon in their soils are often below the threshold of 10% tree cover. The European Commission announces that it will probably consider extending its regulations to other natural ecosystems in a second phase. It should be noted, however, that the adoption of a general measure of “non-conversion of natural ecosystems” (which would essentially aim to protect the Cerrado) would go against the orientations proposed by the Central African Forest Initiative (CAFI), a coalition of donor organizations of which the European Commission is a stakeholder, to ensure that large-scale cultivation (oil palm in particular) develops in savannahs (and therefore natural ecosystems such as Cerrado).

While there are large tracts of degraded and abandoned pasture in Brazil that could be rehabilitated for new crops or plantations, this is hardly the case in the Congo Basin. Taking the context into account will therefore be crucial in order to make relevant decisions and avoid adverse effects. If it seems difficult for a bureaucratic machine such as the Commission to be able to take the context into account in detail, it is reasonable to think that independent certifications meeting the precise specifications of the public authority will do so.

Tropical timber imports under threat

For tropical timber, a rather unexpected threat appears with the mention of forest “degradation” in addition to deforestation. This consideration of degradation seems to be the result of listening to lobbies against logging. The definition of degradation is rather vague: the European project states that degradation means exploitation operations “that are not sustainable”, while the following paragraph indicates that sustainable exploitation means the absence of degradation (of forests primary). It looks like a circular reference.

See related: Mongabay series explores Congo’s massively carbon-rich, highly biodiverse peatland forests

Avoiding degradation involves, by some definitions, maintaining the original species composition, age structure or rate of distribution of a forest stand. All this is modified by selective logging, even controlled and certified (not to mention the CO₂ roads, damage caused by harvesting and logging). The Commission’s draft specifies that forestry operations must not lead to “loss of biological or economic productivity” or affect “the complexity of ecosystems”. These criteria will be difficult to interpret and few operations can claim to fully meet them.

It is a sword of Damocles suspended above the tropical woods, since they are the ones explicitly concerned by this mention of degradation in the draft regulations. The Commission does not question the European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR) of 2013, which aims to sanction importers who place illegally felled timber on the European market. This suggests that there will be no short-term stop to tropical timber imports, but NGOs can raise the issue at any time and ask the EU to be consistent with its non-degradation criteria. It is likely that imports of wood from forests considered “primary” (little disturbed by human activities) will be quickly called into question, which will pose a problem for many foresters in Gabon, Congo and Cameroon, even those certified by demanding labels such as the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC).

Finally, a benchmarking (comparative analysis) of the countries will be carried out to measure the level of due diligence according to the country risk. The criteria for comparison should be deforestation rates, production trends of products at risk of deforestation, national policies, quality of governance, etc. While this approach makes sense, it may discourage importers from sourcing from countries such as Cameroon, Cambodia or the Democratic Republic. of the Congo, given the effort they will have to make in terms of guarantees. By not wanting to rely on “zero deforestation” certifications to declare the product “negligible risk”, the Commission will penalize “clean” producers in contexts of “difficult governance”. This amounts to collective punishment.

Alain Karsenty is an environmental economist and senior researcher at the French Center for Agricultural Research for International Development (CIRAD) in Montpellier, France. He is the author of dozens of scientific articles and co-author of several books.

Banner image: Felling rainforest trees for a road in Gabon. Image © Markus Mauthe/Greenpeace Media Library.

Related listening: Our podcast recently explored mining and palm oil in the Democratic Republic of Congo, sectors where human rights violations and environmental abuses are common, listen here: