18.7.2022
EN
Official Journal of the European Union
C 275/93
within the scope of the regulation.
A special focus must be placed on rubber, maize, bananas, sugar cane, and all meat from animals fed with soy (such as pork and poultry).
The EESC strongly calls for a wood mass inventory at EU level.
This issue should be solved in the near future.
Key definitions within this regulation (e.g. ‘deforestation-free’ or ‘forest degradation’) should be in line with FAO definitions.
Adapted definitions or definitions that are only partly based on FAO definitions just create scope for different interpretations and could therefore lead to legal uncertainty for economic operators.
4.3.
Enforcement of the regulation will be in the hands of the Member States’ competent authorities.
The efficiency of the proposed legislation thus depends on the priority it is given and the operational capacity of public authorities in each Member State.
Making sure that the necessary funds are dedicated, and systems in place in all Member States must be a high priority.
Dedicated investments in IT infrastructure, human resources and increased operational capacity for public authorities in each Member State for effective and adequate monitoring, benchmarks and risk assessment are important.
Artificial intelligence should be used in this regard.
A transparent monitoring system (including publications of the due diligence reports in a form that does not compromise confidential business information)– should be implemented by the entities to which the regulation applies.
The cut-off date must be a date in the past to avoid encouraging further deforestation.
4.4.
The regulation focuses on deforestation and forest degradation linked to production and consumption in Europe of selected commodities and products.
However, it fails to address other very important social and environmental issues associated with the production of the products covered.
In particular, the chosen approach to human rights protection relies exclusively on the laws applicable under national legal frameworks.
This leaves major gaps in terms of safeguarding the land rights of indigenous peoples and local communities and other international human rights standards.
The Committee encourages the Commission to consider supplementing its proposal with guidelines for undertaking due diligence and risk assessments on supply chains in each commodity sector.
The guidelines should include potential sources of information that the relevant responsible operators could consult, such as certification schemes that meet certain minimum standards.
The aim should be to establish a coherent scheme for responsible and deforestation-free supply chains, building on some of the important work that have been done in a number of existing certification schemes.
4.5.
No later than five years after the regulation enters into force, the Commission will carry out an assessment of the impact on farmers, in particular smallholders, indigenous peoples and local communities and the possible need for additional support.
The proposal also provides for an evaluation of the need and feasibility of additional trade facilitation tools to support the achievement of the objectives of the regulation through recognition of certification schemes.
The Committee finds, however, that the role of certification and the impact on farmers, including smallholders and local communities, are essential to the functioning and impact of the proposed regulation, both intended and unintended.
They must be covered by ex-ante assessments and the conclusions stemming from these assessments must be integrated in the regulation before its entry into force.
4.6.
SME exemptions and simplified due diligence under the country benchmarking system should not create loopholes that could render the regulation ineffective.
At the same time, the regulation should not create unnecessary administrative burdens and costs.
A public EU Rating Agency (3) for human and environmental rights in the business context can help SME’s carry out their obligations.
The Commission should carefully evaluate whether the proposed provisions for geo-localisation down to individual plots in low-risk countries and evidential requirements are proportional or necessary.
Some requirements would not only lead to conflicts in the EU with respect to the subsidiarity principle vis-à-vis the Member States, but above all would also impose a disproportionate burden on small producers, who provide a significant share of supply in the EU.
For the sake of transparency, the exact criteria of the classification must be made public.
Small forest owners inside and outside the EU have to be supported to improve sustainable forest management, access sustainable finance and offer sustainable forest products.
4.7.
Articles 22 and 24 include provisions for withdrawal from the market and possible destruction of commodities or products that do not comply with the regulation.
This would in most cases be in conflict with other important EU policy principles and goals, including on preventing food waste.
The EESC therefore recommends that the Commission reconsiders these provisions to avoid destruction of valuable resources.
According to the draft regulation (Article 3) timber from lawful (authorised) clearing of forests for the purpose of creating agricultural land should not be placed on the market.
(3)
See point 1.15 in EESC own-initiative opinion on Binding UN treaty on business and human rights (OJ C 97, 24.3.2020, p. 9).