Your contact for new licenses
Is the bureaucracy monster just a pseudo-giant? Some people like to portray new EU laws as a flood of new regulations that will affect SMEs in particular. Environmentalists have now taken a closer look at widespread assumptions about the anti-deforestation regulation.
The rules will apply from the end of the year, the EPP is calling for a postponement. However, according to a report by the NGOs, which my colleague Lukas Knigge received exclusively in advance, the rules are often misinterpreted. Read his Analysis to find out what successes the regulation has already brought.
Have a good start to the weekend!
Soy, beef, palm oil, timber, cocoa, coffee and rubber, as well as some products made from them, will fall under the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) from Dec. 30, 2024. It sets out binding due diligence obligations for market participants when importing and exporting these products. Initially, it only applies to large and medium-sized companies, but from mid-2025 it will also apply to small and micro enterprises.
Recently, the voices of those who criticize the law as too bureaucratic and fear that smaller forestry and agricultural businesses in particular will be overburdened have become louder. Parts of the industry as well as the Christian Democratic European People’s Party (EPP) spoke out in favor of postponing the regulation.
However, a group of human rights and environmental protection organizations, including WWF, Germanwatch and DUH, speak of misunderstandings regarding the regulation’s mode of action and time required and demand that the law comes into effect on time at the end of this year. The criticism of the deforestation ordinance is “exaggerated, unobjective and characterized by misunderstandings”, says Kathrin Samson, Head of Nature Conservation at WWF Germany. The scaremongering spread by “some politicians and lobbyists” has little to do with reality.
In a joint position paper, which was exclusively available to Table.Briefings before publication, the human rights and environmental protection organizations subject ten “misconceptions” to a fact check. Among other things, they examine the accusations made against the EUDR:
In particular, the EUDR’s requirement to submit GPS data on agricultural and forest areas has been met with criticism in the past, as obtaining the data is not feasible for agricultural and forestry businesses or is bureaucratically overburdening. The NGOs come to the conclusion that the required data would be available anyway, as it would also be needed to apply for EU agricultural subsidies or national funding. If the GPS data for the production areas is still missing, it could be obtained “with manageable effort at short notice” – for example using Google Maps, the paper states. Furthermore, the EUDR does not require GPS data on individual trees, but only on the plots of land affected by logging.
The due diligence declaration required by the EUDR, which affected companies must submit, also only contains information that is already available to EU agricultural or forestry companies. The soy, cattle and forestry companies at the beginning of a supply chain would have less bureaucratic work anyway, as they would not have to obtain information from third parties.
In the case of non-EU companies, obstacles in obtaining the necessary information for due diligence must be expected in individual cases, but it is a matter of checking the legality of the products. Cooperatives in production countries assume that the EUDR will help to combat corruption within supply chains, according to the fact check. Traceability is seen as an important factor in improving living conditions in the producing countries.
In addition, there have already been significant improvements in the fight against illegal deforestation outside the EU, partly due to pressure from the EUDR. The fact check mentions progress in the traceability of the affected products in Indonesia, Ecuador, Argentina and Côte d’Ivoire. Even China is looking for ways to prevent illegal deforestation in its supply chains.
The environmental and human rights organizations counter criticism that the EUDR will cause higher prices due to more bureaucracy by saying that the expected price increase is a consequence of climate change. “The EUDR is an instrument designed to help slow down climate change.” Traceable supply chains in the cocoa sector have also shown that expensive middlemen are being eliminated from the market.
The NGOs also reject the criticism – including from German Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir – that Germany is at risk of being treated as a high-risk country if the EU Commission does not classify it in time. Whether a country or region is classified as low or medium risk for deforestation makes no difference to market participants. If it can be proven that a product is deforestation-free and legal, which is required for classification as a low-risk country, this hardly means any “significant additional effort” for EU countries.
It is now eight weeks since the European elections. The new Parliament and its political groups have been constituted, Ursula von der Leyen (CDU/EPP) has been elected for a second term and Brussels is on vacation. But the European election year is far from over. For one thing, the remaining Commissioners still have to be proposed by the governments, nominated by the Council, assigned portfolios by the Commission President and confirmed by Parliament.
And secondly, several important national and regional elections are taking place in the EU this year: Three East German state parliaments and the Austrian National Council will be elected in September, the parliaments of Lithuania and Bulgaria in October and the presidents of Romania and Croatia as well as the Romanian parliament in December.
So there is still movement in European party politics and, despite the summer break, new election polls have been published in almost all member states since the European elections. The first seat projection of the new electoral period is therefore once again largely based on polls for national parliamentary elections in the member states.
The election winner, the EPP, can once again make slight gains: In the base scenario of the seat projection, it would now have 191 seats (+3 compared to the European elections). This is partly due to the good results of its member parties from Ireland and Estonia. Above all, however, the French Républicains and the Centristes allied with them performed slightly better in the national parliamentary elections at the end of June than in the European elections a few weeks earlier, despite massive internal disputes.
Elsewhere, however, the EPP member parties’ poll ratings have recently fallen slightly – for example in Romania, Croatia and Lithuania. These were only minor fluctuations that should not be given too much weight, especially in the summer slump. However, the EPP could be worried by the fact that elections are still being held in these three countries this year.
For the Social Democratic S&D Group, the seat projection shows little change overall (137 seats/+1). In the three Nordic countries Sweden, Finland and Denmark, the Social Democrats remained well below their national poll ratings in the European elections, and in Poland and Romania they have also made slight gains compared to the election. In France and Italy, on the other hand, the S&D member parties recently performed somewhat weaker than in the election.
On balance, the liberal Renew group remains unchanged with 77 seats. However, this is based on some very large shifts at the national level: For example, the French governing party Renaissance performed significantly better in the national parliamentary elections than in the European elections. In Poland and Romania, too, the Liberals’ national poll ratings are significantly higher than the European election results. In the Nordic countries as well as Lithuania, Latvia and Slovakia, however, the opposite is the case.
On the left side of the political spectrum, the Greens/EFA group fell to 45 seats (-8). However, this follows a well-known pattern, according to which the Greens (and their ally Volt) often perform better in European elections than in national elections. The significant decline is therefore not necessarily due to a change in political sentiment, but in part simply to the different data basis of the seat projection.
The Left Group is also slightly worse off, with the Finnish member party in particular unable to transfer its surprisingly good European election results to the national polls (44 seats/-2).
On the right side of the political spectrum, the ECR group falls back to 73 seats in the projection (-5). This is mainly due to France, where the former ECR member party Reconquête split in the course of the national parliamentary elections and almost disappeared from the scene. The Polish PiS also recorded significantly worse results than in the European elections.
The far-right group “Patriots for Europe” (PfE), which essentially replaces the former ID group, has made significant gains in the seat projection and has 88 seats (+4). This is due to the Portuguese Chega, the Czech ANO and, above all, the Dutch PVV, which all performed significantly worse in the European elections than in the national polls.
The newly founded third far-right group “Europe of Sovereign Nations” (ESN) remains ostensibly stable in the seat projection and, as in the European elections, has 25 seats (±0). However, the ESN member parties from France and Lithuania would no longer enter Parliament. If the European elections were to be repeated this Sunday, the group would therefore only have MEPs from six different Member States – and would therefore not be able to reconstitute itself as a group under the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
The non-attached parties have slightly fewer seats than in the European elections (31/-2). On the other hand, some “other” parties are again represented in the base scenario of the projection – i.e. parties that are not represented in the European Parliament and do not belong to any European party, meaning that they cannot be clearly assigned to any political group (9 seats/+9). These include the right-wing populist NA from Lithuania and the left-liberal satirical Bierpartei from Austria, both of which did not contest the European elections despite good polls.
As there are no pan-European election polls, the seat projection is based on aggregated national polls and election results from all member states. In the base scenario, all national parties are assigned to their current parliamentary group (or the parliamentary group of their European umbrella party); parties without a clear assignment are shown as “other”. The dynamic scenario assigns all “other” parties to a parliamentary group that they could plausibly join.
Currently, however, the nine “other” seats would be so widely distributed across the parliamentary groups that the two scenarios hardly differ. A more detailed breakdown of the results as well as information on the data basis and methodology of the projection can be found on the blog The (European) Federalist.
Is the bureaucracy monster just a pseudo-giant? Some people like to portray new EU laws as a flood of new regulations that will affect SMEs in particular. Environmentalists have now taken a closer look at widespread assumptions about the anti-deforestation regulation.
The rules will apply from the end of the year, the EPP is calling for a postponement. However, according to a report by the NGOs, which my colleague Lukas Knigge received exclusively in advance, the rules are often misinterpreted. Read his Analysis to find out what successes the regulation has already brought.
Have a good start to the weekend!
Soy, beef, palm oil, timber, cocoa, coffee and rubber, as well as some products made from them, will fall under the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) from Dec. 30, 2024. It sets out binding due diligence obligations for market participants when importing and exporting these products. Initially, it only applies to large and medium-sized companies, but from mid-2025 it will also apply to small and micro enterprises.
Recently, the voices of those who criticize the law as too bureaucratic and fear that smaller forestry and agricultural businesses in particular will be overburdened have become louder. Parts of the industry as well as the Christian Democratic European People’s Party (EPP) spoke out in favor of postponing the regulation.
However, a group of human rights and environmental protection organizations, including WWF, Germanwatch and DUH, speak of misunderstandings regarding the regulation’s mode of action and time required and demand that the law comes into effect on time at the end of this year. The criticism of the deforestation ordinance is “exaggerated, unobjective and characterized by misunderstandings”, says Kathrin Samson, Head of Nature Conservation at WWF Germany. The scaremongering spread by “some politicians and lobbyists” has little to do with reality.
In a joint position paper, which was exclusively available to Table.Briefings before publication, the human rights and environmental protection organizations subject ten “misconceptions” to a fact check. Among other things, they examine the accusations made against the EUDR:
In particular, the EUDR’s requirement to submit GPS data on agricultural and forest areas has been met with criticism in the past, as obtaining the data is not feasible for agricultural and forestry businesses or is bureaucratically overburdening. The NGOs come to the conclusion that the required data would be available anyway, as it would also be needed to apply for EU agricultural subsidies or national funding. If the GPS data for the production areas is still missing, it could be obtained “with manageable effort at short notice” – for example using Google Maps, the paper states. Furthermore, the EUDR does not require GPS data on individual trees, but only on the plots of land affected by logging.
The due diligence declaration required by the EUDR, which affected companies must submit, also only contains information that is already available to EU agricultural or forestry companies. The soy, cattle and forestry companies at the beginning of a supply chain would have less bureaucratic work anyway, as they would not have to obtain information from third parties.
In the case of non-EU companies, obstacles in obtaining the necessary information for due diligence must be expected in individual cases, but it is a matter of checking the legality of the products. Cooperatives in production countries assume that the EUDR will help to combat corruption within supply chains, according to the fact check. Traceability is seen as an important factor in improving living conditions in the producing countries.
In addition, there have already been significant improvements in the fight against illegal deforestation outside the EU, partly due to pressure from the EUDR. The fact check mentions progress in the traceability of the affected products in Indonesia, Ecuador, Argentina and Côte d’Ivoire. Even China is looking for ways to prevent illegal deforestation in its supply chains.
The environmental and human rights organizations counter criticism that the EUDR will cause higher prices due to more bureaucracy by saying that the expected price increase is a consequence of climate change. “The EUDR is an instrument designed to help slow down climate change.” Traceable supply chains in the cocoa sector have also shown that expensive middlemen are being eliminated from the market.
The NGOs also reject the criticism – including from German Agriculture Minister Cem Özdemir – that Germany is at risk of being treated as a high-risk country if the EU Commission does not classify it in time. Whether a country or region is classified as low or medium risk for deforestation makes no difference to market participants. If it can be proven that a product is deforestation-free and legal, which is required for classification as a low-risk country, this hardly means any “significant additional effort” for EU countries.
It is now eight weeks since the European elections. The new Parliament and its political groups have been constituted, Ursula von der Leyen (CDU/EPP) has been elected for a second term and Brussels is on vacation. But the European election year is far from over. For one thing, the remaining Commissioners still have to be proposed by the governments, nominated by the Council, assigned portfolios by the Commission President and confirmed by Parliament.
And secondly, several important national and regional elections are taking place in the EU this year: Three East German state parliaments and the Austrian National Council will be elected in September, the parliaments of Lithuania and Bulgaria in October and the presidents of Romania and Croatia as well as the Romanian parliament in December.
So there is still movement in European party politics and, despite the summer break, new election polls have been published in almost all member states since the European elections. The first seat projection of the new electoral period is therefore once again largely based on polls for national parliamentary elections in the member states.
The election winner, the EPP, can once again make slight gains: In the base scenario of the seat projection, it would now have 191 seats (+3 compared to the European elections). This is partly due to the good results of its member parties from Ireland and Estonia. Above all, however, the French Républicains and the Centristes allied with them performed slightly better in the national parliamentary elections at the end of June than in the European elections a few weeks earlier, despite massive internal disputes.
Elsewhere, however, the EPP member parties’ poll ratings have recently fallen slightly – for example in Romania, Croatia and Lithuania. These were only minor fluctuations that should not be given too much weight, especially in the summer slump. However, the EPP could be worried by the fact that elections are still being held in these three countries this year.
For the Social Democratic S&D Group, the seat projection shows little change overall (137 seats/+1). In the three Nordic countries Sweden, Finland and Denmark, the Social Democrats remained well below their national poll ratings in the European elections, and in Poland and Romania they have also made slight gains compared to the election. In France and Italy, on the other hand, the S&D member parties recently performed somewhat weaker than in the election.
On balance, the liberal Renew group remains unchanged with 77 seats. However, this is based on some very large shifts at the national level: For example, the French governing party Renaissance performed significantly better in the national parliamentary elections than in the European elections. In Poland and Romania, too, the Liberals’ national poll ratings are significantly higher than the European election results. In the Nordic countries as well as Lithuania, Latvia and Slovakia, however, the opposite is the case.
On the left side of the political spectrum, the Greens/EFA group fell to 45 seats (-8). However, this follows a well-known pattern, according to which the Greens (and their ally Volt) often perform better in European elections than in national elections. The significant decline is therefore not necessarily due to a change in political sentiment, but in part simply to the different data basis of the seat projection.
The Left Group is also slightly worse off, with the Finnish member party in particular unable to transfer its surprisingly good European election results to the national polls (44 seats/-2).
On the right side of the political spectrum, the ECR group falls back to 73 seats in the projection (-5). This is mainly due to France, where the former ECR member party Reconquête split in the course of the national parliamentary elections and almost disappeared from the scene. The Polish PiS also recorded significantly worse results than in the European elections.
The far-right group “Patriots for Europe” (PfE), which essentially replaces the former ID group, has made significant gains in the seat projection and has 88 seats (+4). This is due to the Portuguese Chega, the Czech ANO and, above all, the Dutch PVV, which all performed significantly worse in the European elections than in the national polls.
The newly founded third far-right group “Europe of Sovereign Nations” (ESN) remains ostensibly stable in the seat projection and, as in the European elections, has 25 seats (±0). However, the ESN member parties from France and Lithuania would no longer enter Parliament. If the European elections were to be repeated this Sunday, the group would therefore only have MEPs from six different Member States – and would therefore not be able to reconstitute itself as a group under the Parliament’s Rules of Procedure.
The non-attached parties have slightly fewer seats than in the European elections (31/-2). On the other hand, some “other” parties are again represented in the base scenario of the projection – i.e. parties that are not represented in the European Parliament and do not belong to any European party, meaning that they cannot be clearly assigned to any political group (9 seats/+9). These include the right-wing populist NA from Lithuania and the left-liberal satirical Bierpartei from Austria, both of which did not contest the European elections despite good polls.
As there are no pan-European election polls, the seat projection is based on aggregated national polls and election results from all member states. In the base scenario, all national parties are assigned to their current parliamentary group (or the parliamentary group of their European umbrella party); parties without a clear assignment are shown as “other”. The dynamic scenario assigns all “other” parties to a parliamentary group that they could plausibly join.
Currently, however, the nine “other” seats would be so widely distributed across the parliamentary groups that the two scenarios hardly differ. A more detailed breakdown of the results as well as information on the data basis and methodology of the projection can be found on the blog The (European) Federalist.