Von der Leyen’s Trump deal guts EU’s anti-deforestation law

As if it wasn’t already in a jam over the delayed rollout of its anti-deforestation regulation, the European Union could have made things a whole lot worse in its desperation to appease Donald Trump.

It had been humiliating enough for Ursula von der Leyen to hot foot it to a Scottish golf course in July and be forced to sign a deal that set tariffs on US goods from Europe at 15 percent across the board.

Two weeks later came a Joint Statement which appeared to do the White House another favour; promising the US special treatment absolving its timber and soy industries of any burdensome due diligence in the relation to EU Deforestation Regulations (EUDR).

Under EUDR, from December 2025 companies will have to check that any imports of specific commodities like cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy and wood are not linked to any deforestation in the past five years.

When it was established earlier this year. the benchmarking system made just four countries at ‘high risk’ of deforestation, 50 were ‘standard risk’ and 140 fell under the ‘low risk’ tier.

Many EU countries objected to their ‘low-risk’ rating, arguing they should be deemed of ‘no risk’, even though some had a questionable history of forest degradation, meaning they would be subjected to minimal checks.

It led to calls for a new ‘no risk’ or ‘negligible risk’ being passed by the European Parliament in a non-binding vote in July, since when the commission has done nothing to revise legislation.

So it was a surprise to see in an official statement (from the commission) that the US ‘poses negligible risk to global deforestation’.

In its joint statement it also talked about the EU working “to address the concerns of US producers and exporters regarding EUDR, with a view to avoiding undue impact on US-EU trade”.

And in a Q&A released afterwards the commission reiterated this saying discussions with the US will be “valuable to ensuring that the EUDR does not result in an unnecessary barriers to transatlantic trade”.

Since when did EUDR change from being conservation tool aimed at cutting global deforestation by 10 percent to being just another negotiating tool in trade agreements?

If you give the US a free pass in deforestation checks because you’re frightened of Trump blowback where does that leave other countries who are no more of a deforestation risk and yet still face costly checks?

America’s paper manufacturers have lobbied aggressively against the regulation, caught their president’s ear and been rewarded.

But already there are warnings that if producers of cocoa, coffee and palm oil don’t receive similar special treatment this could open up the possibility of claims of discrimination under World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules.

The whole point about EUDR was that it was universal and applied to all countries, both in and out of the EU. It was never meant to be something that individual countries could dodge.

Instead, companies would have to meet traceability requirements that demand plot-level geolocation data to show their products were not the result of deforestation.

Creating loopholes for powerful trading partners that effectively let their manufacturers off the hook will only incense those countries who have played by the rules and are now expected to pay for them as well.

Some remain tainted by their past, even though they have taken action to reduce deforestation. According to the World Economic Forum, the two biggest palm oil producers, Indonesia and Malaysia, have seen primary forest loss falling by 64 percent and 57 percent respectively.

It led to Malaysia complaining that its ‘standard risk’ rating was based on old data and Indonesian producers believe its sustainable palm oil certification (ISPO) puts it at the same risk level as American soybean.

Both countries insist they should receive a ‘low risk’ rating, not the same ‘standard risk’ level as Brazil where the beef industry is responsible for decimating the Amazon rainforest.

With the start of EUDR just four months away, one of the trading blocks’ flagship green policies appears mired in as much confusion and uncertainty as ever.

Environmentalists will fear that the commission’s questionable treatment of the US will only play into the hands of the centre-right European People’s Party and far right which has long pushed for delay and continued watering down of its original ideals.

Every month, hundreds of thousands of people read the journalism and opinion published by EUobserver. With your support, millions of others will as well.

If you're not already, become a supporting member today.