public

​Indonesia shared the same concern as Brazil, India and Paraguay, and expressed the view that the policy in question was not a preferred means to achieve environmental goals and was contrary to the spirit of SDGs on ending poverty and hunger, achieving health and well-being, and creating education. Indonesia noted that the design and architecture of this regulation was potentially discriminating in terms of the product coverage and national treatment. It would create new trade barriers and impose unnecessary additional controls and measures and was likely to affect small farmers in developing countries, including Indonesia, to market their products. Indonesia reiterated that, as one of the parties to the Paris Convention, it would adhere to its commitment to the environmental protections and the global effort to combat climate change and would remain supportive to the measures and contribution by Members to pursue legitimate objectives. Indonesia reminded Members that their measures should not generate unnecessary restrictions to trade and that the decisions should be taken based on scientific evidence.

Brazil noted that it still failed to understand how the EU intended to reconcile the proposed regulation with both multilateral and environmental regimes as well as the multilateral trading system. In Brazil's view, the draft regulation rested on arbitrary assumptions from the definition of the first station to the prescription of third parties' obligations. It discriminates against developing countries, as it was clear on the selection of controlled commodities and in disproportionate demands on certification. Brazil observed that very little differential treatment for the developing world and that the costs of adaptation were to be borne by producers within a very tight schedule. Brazil noted that the draft regulation had clear trade distorting effects, potentially disruptive for many producers, and it still lacked material ground, both commercially and scientifically, to justify such a drastic blow. Brazil asked once again for the due consideration of this discussion at the European Parliament and Commission. Brazil also invited the EU to clarify the following questions: (1) how could a regulation apply exclusively to a basket of items produced by a limited number of countries, all in the developing world, was considered non-discriminatory?; (2) How the replacement of the Paris Agreement indices by the EU's unilateral arbitrary goals would not represent extraterritorial jurisdiction entry?; and (3) How to justify a commercial measure as conservation of exhaustible natural resources, when in practice it applied selectively to equatorial tropical forests, ignoring others?​ 

The EU noted that, at the COP 26, world leaders pledged to end deforestation by 2030, which was among the main drivers of climate change and biodiversity loss. The EU highlighted its contribution to the objective by consuming a significant share of products associated with deforestation and forest degradation and was committed to the responsibility to end deforestation. The EU also underscored their strong desire to address its consumption and production linked to deforestation, given the strong call from its citizens. In EU's view, every WTO Member has the right to set up its standards, especially as these are necessary to achieve the commitments in terms of climate and biodiversity, provided that certain conditions are met. The EU noted that its proposed regulation would introduce new diligence requirements to ensure that products do not come from deforested areas when the new rules enter into force. All relevant companies would have to conduct strict due diligence if they operate in EU's market or export from it. Commodities such as palm oil, cattle, soy, coffee, cocoa, timber and rubber as well as derived products had been chosen on the basis of a thorough impact assessment which identified them as the main driver of deforestation due to agricultural expansion. The EU stated that once the draft regulation becomes law, operators and traders would have 18 months to comply with the new regulations and smaller companies would have 24 months to adapt. The regulation sets out requirements for placing relevant commodities and products on the EU internal market, regardless of whether they are produced domestically or in third countries. This ensures that they are treated equally in line with the principle of non-discrimination. The EU also highlighted that transparency and consistency with international commitments, such as halting deforestation under the SDG's, were other key principles enshrined in the regulation. The EU welcomed the consideration of similar measures by other partners such as the planned US Forest Act and the UK Environment Act. The EU expressed its commitment to engage with its partner countries, especially developing countries, to assist producers where necessary, and noted that support would depend on specific situation such as the existing NDC country allocation and partner demand in each country, and would aim at protection, restoration and sustainable use of forest, as well as sustainable agriculture, supply chain transparency and other relevant areas. The EU added that, once adopted, the deforestation regulation will translate the political commitment undertaken by all WTO Members to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation in practice. Finally, the EU stressed that the deforestation regulation did not fall under the Agreement on Agriculture and the Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE) was the relevant forum to discuss environmental measures. Noting that its deforestation proposal had already been presented and discussed several times in the CTE, including very recently in the week of 13 March, the EU informed Members of its plan to organize an information session on technical provisions of the regulation during the WTO Environment Week in June.