News In Brief:
– Seven EU agriculture ministers, led by Austria, are pushing for changes to anti-deforestation rules, aiming to alleviate burdens on small-scale farmers.
– Proposed amendments to the EU Deforestation Regulation raise concerns about administrative hurdles, potential impacts on organic farming, and threats to protein crop production.
Agriculture ministers from seven EU member states are advocating for amendments to the new anti-deforestation law in the European Union. This push, led by Austria, aims to alleviate the regulatory burden on small-scale farmers while ensuring sustainability in agricultural practices. The proposed changes come ahead of a crucial meeting of the EU’s farming ministers scheduled for Tuesday.
The crux of the matter lies in the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which, if implemented as planned, would impact various sectors including cattle, cocoa, coffee, and more. Particularly, small-scale farmers face impending obligations to prove that their products are not sourced from deforested or degraded land after December 2020, with a deadline set for June 2025.
Austrian delegates argue that such requirements pose an undue administrative burden on the agricultural sector. They fear adverse effects on the organic farming sector, especially for conventional cattle farms transitioning to organic practices, which may necessitate larger grazing areas.
Moreover, there are concerns about a potential reduction in protein crop production, particularly soybeans, due to increased bureaucratic hurdles. This, in turn, could lead to heightened reliance on imports from outside the EU, contradicting the EU’s protein initiative aimed at bolstering domestic production.
However, not all stakeholders are in favor of diluting the regulations. Austria’s Minister for Environment, Leonore Gewessler, opposes the move, highlighting the importance of combating deforestation for climate protection. Similarly, organisations like IFOAM Organics Europe and FERN criticise the proposed changes, arguing that they undermine the legislation’s effectiveness and send conflicting messages about the EU’s commitment to environmental conservation.
