public

Ecuador indicated their concern regarding access to market considering that the regulation impacted products emanating from tropical areas. It noted that the extraterritorial effects were very specific to forests that did not exist in the European Union.

Canada highlighted that to make meaningful efforts against climate change, the government of Canada considered innovation as essential to improve agriculture and productivity while at the same time reducing agriculture's impacts on the environment. Regulations could play an important role in achieving a shared outcome such as lower emissions globally. However, actions and regulations that were taken to promote increased sustainability in supply chains needed to take into account all aspects of sustainability, (social, economic and environment) and not create unnecessary trade barriers. Regulations needed to be based on science, be predictable and consider the realities of producing, transforming and bringing products to markets to be applicable across all different jurisdictions and products. Only then could progress on meeting shared goals be achieved.

The United States shared the EU's objective of reducing deforestation and forest degradation but expressed a number of questions concerning the scope of the proposed legislation which had been submitted to the EU's Directorate General for the Environment in February 2022. The US underscored the importance of consultations with trading partners and continued public participation as these policies were developed. It noted that any proposed legislation would need to take into consideration existing policies and programmes to promote reforestation, educate and offer technical assistance to growers to sustainably enhance productivity on existing agricultural lands and eliminate the need and incentives for future deforestation.

Indonesia echoed the concerns of other Members regarding the EU's regulation on deforestation and shared the views of Brazil and the co-sponsors particularly in relation to Indonesia's agricultural products such as coffee and palm oil. It indicated that the deforestation-free products policy was a unilateral measure that was likely to be inconsistent with WTO rules, enhance protectionism rather than encourage other countries tackle climate change or attain food security. Indonesia requested for a holistic clarification on technical aspects such as the calculation methodology, reporting and verification. It highlighted that the countries had different forest specifications and agricultural products' characteristics. The sustainability of production and the livelihoods of smallholder farmers varied. Indonesia invited the EU to analyse these issues closely and clarify its position on them and invited other Members to oversee this EU policy, especially from developing countries' and LDCs perspective given the impacts of the new measure on them.

Brazil expressed support to the questions AG-IMS ID 100103 by Indonesia, AG-IMS ID 100130 by Thailand and AG-IMS ID 100041 by India. Brazil indicated that it had developed competitive, sustainable, and efficient tropical agriculture. Brazil added that even in the context triggered by the COVID-19 pandemic, its agriculture showed admirable performance and consistent sustainable growth notwithstanding the fact relevant international actors had been erroneously associating the growth of Brazilian agriculture to illegitimate practices. These attacks were accompanied by the adoption of restrictive measures on international agriculture trade which were targeting imports from Brazil. Brazil highlighted that the number of Members concerned by this showed that it was the reality of several other developing countries while noting their awareness about the growing concern of consumers and civil society regarding environmental issues, the urgency of climate action and the imperative of achieving the Sustainable Development Goals, especially SDG 2 "Zero Hunger and Sustainable Agriculture" and 13 "Action Against Global Climate Change". Brazil emphasized the need for more secure and sustainable production systems. Brazilian consumers and civil society shared the same concerns however, Brazil expressed the view that environmentalist arguments had been instrumentalized by protectionist commercialized interests. Some opinion makers and decision makers in relevant markets were unaware of the regulatory and technological advances in Brazilian agriculture. Brazil also indicated that there was a reductionist view which tried to restrain sustainable development to the environmental aspect and to further restrict these environmental aspects of sustainability exclusively to the issue of deforestation. Brazil expressed concerns also regarding disproportionate responsibility for high emissions of greenhouse gases attributed by the international press and public opinion to agriculture from the World not just from Brazil with a convenient omittance of the central role of transport systems, domestic heating and electricity obtained from fossil fuels. In many cases, questions about the sustainability of livestock farming for example were based on opinion articles or studies carried out in specific regions without accounting for the impact of techniques and local ecological context on the sustainability of production. Currently in Europe, proposals for mandatory mechanisms on due diligence were on the verge of being adopted and were imposed on companies with the burden of proving that their production and supply chains were not associated with the risks of deforestation of tropical forests. The intent was to scare away the private sector from collaborating with developing countries because of the extra cost they would incur. Behind the proposal that was increasing companies' responsibilities for environmental standards of their supply chains, there was a discriminatory focus which inconsistently redefined what constituted sustainability in food production systems. Brazil had long been aware that agriculture was one of the sectors that was most exposed to the impacts of climate change and therefore, the public and private sectors in Brazil had been developing partnerships towards increasing more sustainable practices that were resilient to climate change. Brazilian agriculture production was fully compatible with the preservation of the environment and was contributing to the improvement of various environmental indices and to the rational use of natural resources and based on innovation, technology, and inclusive policies. Besides, the legitimate concerns about climate change and the projection that the world population would reach 9.7 billion in 2050 was a scenario of growing demand for food, especially grains and proteins which was imposing an additional challenge for the sustainable development of food systems to increase production and ensure distribution with the least impact on the environment. Brazil therefore had invested in agricultural research and rural extension which delivered substantial increases in productivity so that more was produced using the same area without depleting the soil which Brazil referred to as sustainable intensification of production. Moreover, Brazil was adopting at increasing rate, more sustainable processes including crop livestock forest integration, no-till agriculture, use of planted forests, recovery of degraded pastures and treatment of animal wastes among others.

Colombia expressed concern about the fact that the deforestation policy showed extraterritorial protection for combatting the degradation of primary forest for the production and export of products covered by the measure. Colombia also noted that the measure could be counterproductive and lead to discrimination as it focused on foreign products which were not produced in the EU.