Trase urges EU to reject last-minute amendments to EUDR

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

Trase's co-directors criticize proposed EPP amendments to the EUDR, specifically the introduction of a "no risk" country category. They argue that the criteria for this category—such as stable net forest area—are scientifically flawed and could mask significant deforestation, create legal uncertainty regarding WTO rules, and introduce loopholes that undermine the regulation's effectiveness.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The EPP group proposes a "no risk" category for countries that would be exempt from deforestation-free criteria and due diligence statements, including the requirement to provide geographical location data for products. Under this proposal, enforcement checks for these countries would be limited to 0.1% of regulated companies.
  • Trase asserts that using net forest area as a criterion for "no risk" status is scientifically unsound because a stable or increasing net forest area can hide widespread deforestation and degradation. For instance, Vietnam and Thailand have seen net increases in forest area since 1990 despite significant deforestation linked to agricultural commodities.
  • The proposed amendments could lead to 25 of the 27 EU member states being classified as "no risk," which may be perceived as a protectionist measure and could breach World Trade Organization (WTO) rules, creating legal uncertainty for stakeholders.
  • Trase argues that the proposed criteria for "no risk" status are unlikely to be met by many countries, including EU member states; for example, the EU has ruled that Romania, Slovakia, Poland, Sweden, and Estonia have not adequately implemented forest conservation regulations.
  • The EPP amendments are viewed as creating a significant loophole that makes it harder for authorities to identify laundering and enforce the EUDR, compared to the existing low-risk category which still requires geolocation data and due diligence statements.

Cite the original document

APA
Bellfield, H., & Gardner, T. (2024). Trase urges EU to reject last-minute amendments to EUDR. Stockholm Environment Institute. https://www.sei.org/perspectives/trase-urges-eu-to-reject-last-minute-amendments-to-eudr/
Chicago
Bellfield, Helen, and Toby Gardner. Trase urges EU to reject last-minute amendments to EUDR. Stockholm Environment Institute, 2024. https://www.sei.org/perspectives/trase-urges-eu-to-reject-last-minute-amendments-to-eudr/.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |last1=Bellfield |first1=Helen |last2=Gardner |first2=Toby |title=Trase urges EU to reject last-minute amendments to EUDR |publisher=Stockholm Environment Institute |date=20 November 2024 |url=https://www.sei.org/perspectives/trase-urges-eu-to-reject-last-minute-amendments-to-eudr/ |access-date=23 October 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{bellfield2024trase, author = {Bellfield, Helen and Gardner, Toby}, title = {{Trase urges EU to reject last-minute amendments to EUDR}}, publisher = {Stockholm Environment Institute}, year = {2024}, month = nov, url = {https://www.sei.org/perspectives/trase-urges-eu-to-reject-last-minute-amendments-to-eudr/}, urldate = {2026-10-23}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated