Following his visit to Kiev yesterday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is traveling to Moscow today. Several hours are scheduled for the meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Scholz’s trip is actually an inaugural visit, but the looming threat of war in Ukraine will likely overshadow all other issues. In Kiev, the chancellor said that he wanted to lobby Putin for de-escalation of the crisis.
Next week, the Council of European Agriculture Ministers will meet in Brussels. At the top of the agenda: the EU Commission’s proposal for a regulation on deforestation-free supply chains. According to a study by the environmental organization WWF, European imports are responsible for 16 percent of global deforestation. SPD MEP Delara Burkhardt is shadow rapporteur for the S&D Group. In an interview with Timo Landenberger, the politician talks about why the planned law can make a decisive contribution to climate protection, where there are still loopholes, and what it might have to do with the upcoming presidential election in France.
While many EU countries are groaning under record energy prices, Italy is coming through the crisis comparatively calmly. The country was so well positioned that it even became a natural gas exporter in the meantime, supplying Germany and France, for example. Italy is also heavily dependent on Russian gas. But the country began building up strategic gas reserves several years ago – and would like to see the same for the entire EU. Imports from Azerbaijan are also playing an increasingly important role, as Isabel Cuesta Camacho reports.
Ms. Burkhardt, according to the environmental organization WWF, an area of forest the size of a soccer field disappears every 90 seconds worldwide – due to EU imports alone. Who is responsible here? Politics, business, consumer society?
Everyone bears some responsibility. That’s why a political framework is needed. 16 percent of global deforestation is attributable to European consumption, another WWF study shows. Only China imports more deforestation, at 24 percent. If you put this in relation to the number of inhabitants, it becomes clear that Europe is leaving a very large footprint.
And thus ultimately harming the climate.
Very much so. We know that forests are enormously important for climate protection. They are natural CO2 reservoirs and have an important function for the ecosystem. Around a quarter of the potential CO2 reduction needed to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius can be found in forests. That’s why it’s important that we focus on forests. And in doing so, we must recognize that we are clearly contributing to deforestation with our way of producing and consuming.
How so?
The forests are already in bad shape due to climate change. In addition, they are being converted into agricultural land on a large scale to produce raw materials such as soy, cocoa, palm oil, coffee, corn, and rubber. This is a huge problem, as eleven percent of global emissions are caused by this deforestation alone. As consumers, we naturally also bear a share of the responsibility. But if we can only decide in front of the supermarket shelf whether we want to contribute to deforestation or not, then it is already too late. That’s why we, as European legislators, must intervene earlier and ensure that products originating from deforestation do not even enter the European market.
What are the products and industries?
Europe is a major transshipment hub for luxury goods such as coffee and cocoa. We process cocoa into chocolate. Here, Europe is even the world market leader, although not a single cocoa bean grows anywhere on our continent. The automotive industry also has a responsibility. For example, rubber ends up in tires and leather in car seats. But above all, it’s about animal feed made from corn and especially soy.
The manufacturing and agricultural industries rely on these imported goods and buy them on the open market.
Of course, you can say you have no influence on what others do. But for me, that is not the approach of the Green Deal. Europe wants to take global responsibility and reduce its own carbon footprint. Deforestation plays an important role in this. We want to set new standards and guarantee that our way of producing and consuming no longer contributes to deforestation. We aim to make European supply chains deforestation-free. But we also want to have an impact on improving production conditions in the countries of origin and making them sustainable. And this is where Europe, as a self-proclaimed pioneer, has a responsibility.
At the World Climate Conference in Glasgow, more than 100 countries pledged to stop the destruction of forests.
There have been similar pledges before. The question is what follows from this. People have a very emotional, romantic relationship with the forest. In the past, when people talked about climate protection and nature conservation, the forest was always a central topic. But where have we arrived? Global deforestation rates are rising relentlessly. Every year, tropical rainforest of an area the size of the Netherlands disappears. Obviously, these voluntary commitments are getting us nowhere. That’s why it’s important that we in the EU actually pass legislation that will enable us to actually achieve these voluntary commitments. We no longer have time for lofty, non-binding goals.
How will the now planned regulation ensure this?
Binding due diligence obligations for companies are planned. The Commission proposal includes soy, cocoa, coffee, beef, wood, and palm oil. If companies want to place these products on the European market, they must prove for each step of their supply chain that the products have not contributed to deforestation. Where deforestation risks have been identified, concrete countermeasures must be taken to remedy the situation. Only then may these products enter the EU market.
How do you assess the Commission proposal, which goes less far than your own-initiative report?
At first, I didn’t think we would get that far. The Commission had initially made completely different proposals, including certification standards for greater safety on the market through binding labels. The fact that the binding due diligence requirements have prevailed as the basis for the law is a great success. So it’s a good proposal and a huge step forward. But there are still shortcomings and loopholes that could ensure that important parts of deforestation could be neglected.
Which are?
On the one hand, this concerns the product range, on which corn and rubber are still missing. A scientific report for the Commission still came to the conclusion that both raw materials contribute significantly to deforestation and should therefore be included in the text. Leaving them out was, therefore, a political decision. But such a law should be based on scientific criteria.
Political decision, conditioned by what?
I could only speculate on this, but I can imagine that lobbying from parts of the rubber processing industry played a role here. But there is agreement in Parliament that all risk goods must be included in any processed form.
What are the other areas needing improvement?
I also take a critical view of other valuable ecosystems. Several studies show: If you take the pressure off forests, it goes to other valuable ecosystems. These include, for example, the Cerrado and Gran Chaco savannas, or the Pantanal wetlands in South America, where monocultures would then also develop.
It is also a question of taking human rights into account, which has not been sufficiently provided for in the regulation so far. We know that very specific forms of human rights violations are committed in the context of deforestation, for example, through the expropriation and displacement of indigenous population groups or through the persecution of environmental activists. The role of banks as financiers of deforestation activities is also not enshrined in the act. I want to change that in the legislative process. Nevertheless, this law is a major game changer. Because responsibility is being assumed in concrete terms, and this really does give Europe the chance to take on a global pioneering role.
The Commission’s public consultation on this directive received the second largest response in the history of the EU. The issue moves people. Why did it take so long for the many voluntary commitments to become law?
This goes hand in hand with a change in perception in society. I don’t think coffee in the morning was associated with burning rainforests for a long time. Increasing environmental awareness among the population has also led to greater pressure for action here in politics. In addition, there are instructive experiences with the existing legislation, for example, with the wood ordinance. Here, the wood processing industry must prove that the raw material is of legal origin.
This is, of course, an exciting question of definition. Because Brazil is in the process of simply adapting the relevant laws. In this way, deforestation can quickly be declared legal. But it is still harmful to the climate and to the protection of species. For this reason, we must go beyond this and introduce not only legality but sustainability as a standard. Neither legal nor illegal deforestation should be imported into the EU in the future.
Your own-initiative report had found a majority in Parliament, but still not only supporters. What are the skeptics’ concerns?
The question of control and sanction options is viewed critically. My report had envisaged civil liability for companies if they fail to meet their due diligence obligations. After all, the point of a regulatory framework is that there are consequences if you don’t follow the rules. After all, we are not holding companies liable for something over which they have no control. It’s about identifying risks in the supply chain and then taking action where necessary, rather than deliberately looking the other way.
The critics are now putting small and medium-sized enterprises forward with the argument that they do not want to increase the bureaucracy. I don’t want that either. But with our framework legislation, I want to reward business models that do not specialize in exploiting people and nature. Many companies are already proving that this is possible. They should no longer be put at a competitive disadvantage.
What are the next steps now? When will the law come into force?
The conflicts must now be resolved and negotiated. The Council is already working intensively on the issue and wants to define its position during this six-month period under the French Council Presidency. However, we in the EU Parliament will not decide on our negotiating basis until September. We will then meet with the Council in the trilogue for negotiations, and then it will still take time for the law to be implemented nationally.
Why not until September?
The fact that we are now losing so much time is probably also due to the upcoming presidential election in France, and I think that is a great pity. The French Council Presidency would have liked to get the law through more quickly, but I suspect that the conservatives here in Parliament don’t want to begrudge the liberal Macron this election triumph and have therefore successfully sought to take the lead on the regulation, thereby helping to determine the timetable. I don’t think this delaying tactic is okay.
In October 2021, under my leadership, the European Parliament already passed a far-reaching draft resolution on the deforestation regulation, on the basis of which we can quickly draft amendments to the Commission proposal. This draft resolution may not suit the conservatives in the European Parliament, but that’s how it is in a democracy.
When after the EU-US Summit in 2021 both parties agreed to create the Trade and Technology Council many analysts sighted in relief- but with caution. Previous undertakings had proved unsuccessful and the state of relations between the EU and the US is not in its best shape. It is important to mention that the TTC is not the consequence of a renewed transatlantic alliance, but rather a test for the United States and for Europe that they can cooperate to solve global technology issues.
The point of departure is urgency: of strengthening multilateral cooperation, of boosting transatlantic innovation and competitiveness, and to confront China in international standard setting and in the development of new technologies. Nevertheless, for the TTC to be successful in coordinating “approaches to key global technology, economic, and trade issues” as the Declaration that both parties signed after their first meeting reads, they will have to solve internal disputes – like data flows and platform regulation – and foresight the impact of emerging markets and technologies.
The first area of urgency is standard setting. In the last decade, Chinese officials have filled important seats at international organizations such as the ISO (International Standardisation Organisation) thus positioning the country in a good position to influence standards-setting and increase the competitiveness of its national champions, like Baidu, Tencent, or Huawei.
Standards condition interoperability but also reflect values, which is the reason the TTC has put the topic so high on the agenda. For technology to reflect democratic values, and to be accountable, both the US and the EU must agree in common standards, and, unlike previous waves of industrialization, the position of the transatlantic alliance is not truly advantageous.
The second urgent matter is the rebalance of supply chains and the need to increase the level of security and the capacity of maneuver of both parties in case of disruption. In this sense, improving the manufacturing capacity of legacy and cutting-edge chips is a good step forward. But given the importance of digital industries, both parties could benefit from anticipating market shortages in other areas, such as in critical components like rare earths, whose production is dominated by China.
The last urgent topic is the necessity to agree on a common stance on artificial intelligence (AI). This last issue is crucial, for it will test the ability of the TTC to set the foundations for the governance of new technologies.
It is important to notice that the European and American approaches to responsible AI differ in the elements that make the systems qualify as trusted or untrusted. That may be the reason that the governance of AI is so diluted in the 10 working groups that the TTC created. Understanding the different approaches and seeking to harmonize the definitions of trustworthiness is crucial to avoid future conflicts of interests.
When one reads the Pittsburg declaration and follows the work of the working groups the sensation to be working anti-clockwise confirms. Combining the efforts to solve these urgent governance and technical issues is crucial as it is to reflect in what is to come and take preventive action.
This way both the US and EU will be better positioned to take decisions that will benefit their societies, their economies, and their geopolitical position vis-à-vis adversaries like China.
Following his visit to Kiev yesterday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz is traveling to Moscow today. Several hours are scheduled for the meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Scholz’s trip is actually an inaugural visit, but the looming threat of war in Ukraine will likely overshadow all other issues. In Kiev, the chancellor said that he wanted to lobby Putin for de-escalation of the crisis.
Next week, the Council of European Agriculture Ministers will meet in Brussels. At the top of the agenda: the EU Commission’s proposal for a regulation on deforestation-free supply chains. According to a study by the environmental organization WWF, European imports are responsible for 16 percent of global deforestation. SPD MEP Delara Burkhardt is shadow rapporteur for the S&D Group. In an interview with Timo Landenberger, the politician talks about why the planned law can make a decisive contribution to climate protection, where there are still loopholes, and what it might have to do with the upcoming presidential election in France.
While many EU countries are groaning under record energy prices, Italy is coming through the crisis comparatively calmly. The country was so well positioned that it even became a natural gas exporter in the meantime, supplying Germany and France, for example. Italy is also heavily dependent on Russian gas. But the country began building up strategic gas reserves several years ago – and would like to see the same for the entire EU. Imports from Azerbaijan are also playing an increasingly important role, as Isabel Cuesta Camacho reports.
Ms. Burkhardt, according to the environmental organization WWF, an area of forest the size of a soccer field disappears every 90 seconds worldwide – due to EU imports alone. Who is responsible here? Politics, business, consumer society?
Everyone bears some responsibility. That’s why a political framework is needed. 16 percent of global deforestation is attributable to European consumption, another WWF study shows. Only China imports more deforestation, at 24 percent. If you put this in relation to the number of inhabitants, it becomes clear that Europe is leaving a very large footprint.
And thus ultimately harming the climate.
Very much so. We know that forests are enormously important for climate protection. They are natural CO2 reservoirs and have an important function for the ecosystem. Around a quarter of the potential CO2 reduction needed to limit global warming to below 2 degrees Celsius can be found in forests. That’s why it’s important that we focus on forests. And in doing so, we must recognize that we are clearly contributing to deforestation with our way of producing and consuming.
How so?
The forests are already in bad shape due to climate change. In addition, they are being converted into agricultural land on a large scale to produce raw materials such as soy, cocoa, palm oil, coffee, corn, and rubber. This is a huge problem, as eleven percent of global emissions are caused by this deforestation alone. As consumers, we naturally also bear a share of the responsibility. But if we can only decide in front of the supermarket shelf whether we want to contribute to deforestation or not, then it is already too late. That’s why we, as European legislators, must intervene earlier and ensure that products originating from deforestation do not even enter the European market.
What are the products and industries?
Europe is a major transshipment hub for luxury goods such as coffee and cocoa. We process cocoa into chocolate. Here, Europe is even the world market leader, although not a single cocoa bean grows anywhere on our continent. The automotive industry also has a responsibility. For example, rubber ends up in tires and leather in car seats. But above all, it’s about animal feed made from corn and especially soy.
The manufacturing and agricultural industries rely on these imported goods and buy them on the open market.
Of course, you can say you have no influence on what others do. But for me, that is not the approach of the Green Deal. Europe wants to take global responsibility and reduce its own carbon footprint. Deforestation plays an important role in this. We want to set new standards and guarantee that our way of producing and consuming no longer contributes to deforestation. We aim to make European supply chains deforestation-free. But we also want to have an impact on improving production conditions in the countries of origin and making them sustainable. And this is where Europe, as a self-proclaimed pioneer, has a responsibility.
At the World Climate Conference in Glasgow, more than 100 countries pledged to stop the destruction of forests.
There have been similar pledges before. The question is what follows from this. People have a very emotional, romantic relationship with the forest. In the past, when people talked about climate protection and nature conservation, the forest was always a central topic. But where have we arrived? Global deforestation rates are rising relentlessly. Every year, tropical rainforest of an area the size of the Netherlands disappears. Obviously, these voluntary commitments are getting us nowhere. That’s why it’s important that we in the EU actually pass legislation that will enable us to actually achieve these voluntary commitments. We no longer have time for lofty, non-binding goals.
How will the now planned regulation ensure this?
Binding due diligence obligations for companies are planned. The Commission proposal includes soy, cocoa, coffee, beef, wood, and palm oil. If companies want to place these products on the European market, they must prove for each step of their supply chain that the products have not contributed to deforestation. Where deforestation risks have been identified, concrete countermeasures must be taken to remedy the situation. Only then may these products enter the EU market.
How do you assess the Commission proposal, which goes less far than your own-initiative report?
At first, I didn’t think we would get that far. The Commission had initially made completely different proposals, including certification standards for greater safety on the market through binding labels. The fact that the binding due diligence requirements have prevailed as the basis for the law is a great success. So it’s a good proposal and a huge step forward. But there are still shortcomings and loopholes that could ensure that important parts of deforestation could be neglected.
Which are?
On the one hand, this concerns the product range, on which corn and rubber are still missing. A scientific report for the Commission still came to the conclusion that both raw materials contribute significantly to deforestation and should therefore be included in the text. Leaving them out was, therefore, a political decision. But such a law should be based on scientific criteria.
Political decision, conditioned by what?
I could only speculate on this, but I can imagine that lobbying from parts of the rubber processing industry played a role here. But there is agreement in Parliament that all risk goods must be included in any processed form.
What are the other areas needing improvement?
I also take a critical view of other valuable ecosystems. Several studies show: If you take the pressure off forests, it goes to other valuable ecosystems. These include, for example, the Cerrado and Gran Chaco savannas, or the Pantanal wetlands in South America, where monocultures would then also develop.
It is also a question of taking human rights into account, which has not been sufficiently provided for in the regulation so far. We know that very specific forms of human rights violations are committed in the context of deforestation, for example, through the expropriation and displacement of indigenous population groups or through the persecution of environmental activists. The role of banks as financiers of deforestation activities is also not enshrined in the act. I want to change that in the legislative process. Nevertheless, this law is a major game changer. Because responsibility is being assumed in concrete terms, and this really does give Europe the chance to take on a global pioneering role.
The Commission’s public consultation on this directive received the second largest response in the history of the EU. The issue moves people. Why did it take so long for the many voluntary commitments to become law?
This goes hand in hand with a change in perception in society. I don’t think coffee in the morning was associated with burning rainforests for a long time. Increasing environmental awareness among the population has also led to greater pressure for action here in politics. In addition, there are instructive experiences with the existing legislation, for example, with the wood ordinance. Here, the wood processing industry must prove that the raw material is of legal origin.
This is, of course, an exciting question of definition. Because Brazil is in the process of simply adapting the relevant laws. In this way, deforestation can quickly be declared legal. But it is still harmful to the climate and to the protection of species. For this reason, we must go beyond this and introduce not only legality but sustainability as a standard. Neither legal nor illegal deforestation should be imported into the EU in the future.
Your own-initiative report had found a majority in Parliament, but still not only supporters. What are the skeptics’ concerns?
The question of control and sanction options is viewed critically. My report had envisaged civil liability for companies if they fail to meet their due diligence obligations. After all, the point of a regulatory framework is that there are consequences if you don’t follow the rules. After all, we are not holding companies liable for something over which they have no control. It’s about identifying risks in the supply chain and then taking action where necessary, rather than deliberately looking the other way.
The critics are now putting small and medium-sized enterprises forward with the argument that they do not want to increase the bureaucracy. I don’t want that either. But with our framework legislation, I want to reward business models that do not specialize in exploiting people and nature. Many companies are already proving that this is possible. They should no longer be put at a competitive disadvantage.
What are the next steps now? When will the law come into force?
The conflicts must now be resolved and negotiated. The Council is already working intensively on the issue and wants to define its position during this six-month period under the French Council Presidency. However, we in the EU Parliament will not decide on our negotiating basis until September. We will then meet with the Council in the trilogue for negotiations, and then it will still take time for the law to be implemented nationally.
Why not until September?
The fact that we are now losing so much time is probably also due to the upcoming presidential election in France, and I think that is a great pity. The French Council Presidency would have liked to get the law through more quickly, but I suspect that the conservatives here in Parliament don’t want to begrudge the liberal Macron this election triumph and have therefore successfully sought to take the lead on the regulation, thereby helping to determine the timetable. I don’t think this delaying tactic is okay.
In October 2021, under my leadership, the European Parliament already passed a far-reaching draft resolution on the deforestation regulation, on the basis of which we can quickly draft amendments to the Commission proposal. This draft resolution may not suit the conservatives in the European Parliament, but that’s how it is in a democracy.
When after the EU-US Summit in 2021 both parties agreed to create the Trade and Technology Council many analysts sighted in relief- but with caution. Previous undertakings had proved unsuccessful and the state of relations between the EU and the US is not in its best shape. It is important to mention that the TTC is not the consequence of a renewed transatlantic alliance, but rather a test for the United States and for Europe that they can cooperate to solve global technology issues.
The point of departure is urgency: of strengthening multilateral cooperation, of boosting transatlantic innovation and competitiveness, and to confront China in international standard setting and in the development of new technologies. Nevertheless, for the TTC to be successful in coordinating “approaches to key global technology, economic, and trade issues” as the Declaration that both parties signed after their first meeting reads, they will have to solve internal disputes – like data flows and platform regulation – and foresight the impact of emerging markets and technologies.
The first area of urgency is standard setting. In the last decade, Chinese officials have filled important seats at international organizations such as the ISO (International Standardisation Organisation) thus positioning the country in a good position to influence standards-setting and increase the competitiveness of its national champions, like Baidu, Tencent, or Huawei.
Standards condition interoperability but also reflect values, which is the reason the TTC has put the topic so high on the agenda. For technology to reflect democratic values, and to be accountable, both the US and the EU must agree in common standards, and, unlike previous waves of industrialization, the position of the transatlantic alliance is not truly advantageous.
The second urgent matter is the rebalance of supply chains and the need to increase the level of security and the capacity of maneuver of both parties in case of disruption. In this sense, improving the manufacturing capacity of legacy and cutting-edge chips is a good step forward. But given the importance of digital industries, both parties could benefit from anticipating market shortages in other areas, such as in critical components like rare earths, whose production is dominated by China.
The last urgent topic is the necessity to agree on a common stance on artificial intelligence (AI). This last issue is crucial, for it will test the ability of the TTC to set the foundations for the governance of new technologies.
It is important to notice that the European and American approaches to responsible AI differ in the elements that make the systems qualify as trusted or untrusted. That may be the reason that the governance of AI is so diluted in the 10 working groups that the TTC created. Understanding the different approaches and seeking to harmonize the definitions of trustworthiness is crucial to avoid future conflicts of interests.
When one reads the Pittsburg declaration and follows the work of the working groups the sensation to be working anti-clockwise confirms. Combining the efforts to solve these urgent governance and technical issues is crucial as it is to reflect in what is to come and take preventive action.
This way both the US and EU will be better positioned to take decisions that will benefit their societies, their economies, and their geopolitical position vis-à-vis adversaries like China.
