Last week, the International Coffee Organization asked the European Union to postpone the implementation of a up-to-date law requiring all imported goods, such as coffee, to prove they are not linked to deforested land. With the regulations set to go into effect on December 30 this year, many in the industry say there has not been enough time for widespread adoption of the measures required to meet the requirements of the up-to-date statute, which would ultimately harm compact farmers. In its proposal, the ICO did not set any specific timetable for the introduction of the law, but in the face of mounting pressure, the EU appears ready to delay it. The European Commission has proposed postponing the implementation of the up-to-date law for a full 12 months, and in some cases even longer.
As reported BloombergThe Commission concludes that the overall purpose of the Act has not changed, but nevertheless acknowledged that bringing forward the implementation date would ultimately have an adverse impact on global producers. “The Commission is aware that, three months before the planned implementation date, several global partners have repeatedly expressed concerns about their state of readiness,” the European Commission said. “The state of preparation among stakeholders in Europe is also uneven.”
If the European Parliament and its member states agree, the up-to-date proposed start date of the law will be extended to December 30, 2025 for larger companies. The proposal also provides for a separation for smaller operations, allowing adoption until June 30, 2026.
Many in the coffee industry are praising the proposal, calling it a “huge relief.” Still, environmental groups such as Greenpeace EU have expressed unequivocal disappointment with the proposal. Forest policy director Sébastien Risso said Commission President Ursula von der Leyen might as well have wielded a chainsaw herself” and that “people in Europe don’t want products from deforestation on supermarket shelves, but that’s what it will bring to them delay. ”
The response to the proposal expresses the sophisticated nature of the situation. Action to combat climate change is desperately needed, and the EU as a huge governing body can certainly make an impact. But as the law has shown, steps must also be taken to ensure that it is not the most vulnerable who suffer the most. For example, a farmer in Uganda could not contribute to deforestation, but if he was unable to provide proof, he would still be subject to the same prohibition as the farmers the law tries to ban. There is no right answer, at least for now, but a reprieve, while not perfect, could lend a hand mitigate the collateral damage of a well-intentioned law.
