Update May 09, 2024
Research by Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres made suggestions on how the EU could ensure more sustainability in global agricultural trade and concluded:
"In the case of highly relevant agricultural goods such as soya and palm oil, which together account for almost two thirds of the EU proportion of deforestation in partner countries and one third of the footprint, it is up to the EU to reduce this relevance. For example, it could regulate demand by promoting more sustainable livestock farming or a low-meat diet in the EU. However, examples from the recent past (e.g., palm oil) show how sensitively global trade should be handled.
The EU had pushed ahead with regulations for more sustainable cultivation but lost large market share as a result because other countries such as India and China took over EU proportions of the global market.
"The EU thus gambled away parts of its influence because the demand for palm oil continues. It no longer has as much influence on making this trade more sustainable because the proportion of palm oil imported into the EU is no longer as high," says Zinngrebe.
This means that the EU no longer has any effective leverage. If the EU truly hopes to implement policy coherence in the interests of development, it must support these countries in developing their economies beyond agriculture to value-adding sustainable production." Phys Org
Research by Helmholtz Association of German Research Centres made suggestions on how the EU could ensure more sustainability in global agricultural trade and concluded:
"In the case of highly relevant agricultural goods such as soya and palm oil, which together account for almost two thirds of the EU proportion of deforestation in partner countries and one third of the footprint, it is up to the EU to reduce this relevance. For example, it could regulate demand by promoting more sustainable livestock farming or a low-meat diet in the EU. However, examples from the recent past (e.g., palm oil) show how sensitively global trade should be handled.
The EU had pushed ahead with regulations for more sustainable cultivation but lost large market share as a result because other countries such as India and China took over EU proportions of the global market.
"The EU thus gambled away parts of its influence because the demand for palm oil continues. It no longer has as much influence on making this trade more sustainable because the proportion of palm oil imported into the EU is no longer as high," says Zinngrebe.
This means that the EU no longer has any effective leverage. If the EU truly hopes to implement policy coherence in the interests of development, it must support these countries in developing their economies beyond agriculture to value-adding sustainable production." Phys Org
|
|
|
The European Union has undoubtedly occupied news headlines with its ambitions to feature nature in a sustainable future for its citizens.
Efforts to clean up the environmental impact of EU citizens have for the most part targeted imported goods with a bit of talk of restoring nature in the EU.
However, resistance against the lawmakers in Brussels has seen a backpedaling of policies including the diluted CSDDD. With the EU elections coming up, the current crop of policy makers are scaling back environmental rules for EU farmers. Further easing of environmental rules for EU farmers may come depending on the outcome of the EU agriculture ministers push to weaken deforestation rules.
In its struggle to find sustainable sources of food for Europeans, the arguments on soy, which is seen as a vital source of protein, exemplifies the challenges for Brussels.
The European Union is determined to achieve more open strategic autonomy in important policy areas. Today’s context is characterised by farmers protests and geopolitical, as well as economic, shifts. Food sovereignty becomes thus even more important.
Food sovereignty is an impossible goal when it comes to the EU's reliance on soy. According to this report published in Oilseeds and fats Crops and Lipids:
The European Union (EU) has a high demand for plant proteins, amounting to around 27 million tons of crude proteins in 2017. Today, the EU-27’s self-sufficiency rate varies substantially depending on the protein source among oil-protein crops (79% for rapeseed, 42% for sunflower but only 5% for soya), (European Commission, 2018). Consequently, EU-27 imports annually around 17 million tons of crude proteins (of which 13 million tons are soya based corresponding to 30 million tons of soya beans equivalent), essentially from Brazil, Argentina and the USA. In addition, until 2022, the EU imported about 1.5 million tons of crude proteins from sunflower and up to one million tons from rapeseed, both mostly from Ukraine.
As for farmers of cocoa, coffee and palm oil in non-EU countries, the EU risks confirmation of its double standards for environmental demands on agriculture if the infamous EU Deforestation Regulations, which has concerned exporting countries from Africa to Latin America and Southeast Asia goes ahead.
According to European NGO, FERN, the EU is confirming what palm oil producing countries have accused the EU of. A double standard.
“The message to the rest of the world will be clear: Europe is happy to take decisive action to end the destruction of forests abroad but isn’t prepared to do so at home”
Often accused of hypocrisy and protectionism by palm oil producing countries, Malaysia and Indonesia, the EU has created a defense of its policies with the adoption of the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI).
The ACI may come in handy for the EU as China challenges the European Commission on "pursuing protectionist actions at the expense of green initiatives by launching investigations into Chinese subsidies.
"We can't understand how the European Commission on the one hand carries the flag for green sustainable development and on the other hand undertakes protectionist operations," Wang Wentao said at an Italy-China economic forum in Verona.
The ACI could be the European Union’s definitive defense in creating Green Fortress Europe which protects EU jobs and industries but ultimately, the green ambitions of its multiple policies from CSDDD to EUDR may come to naught for tropical forests.
The thing is, the influence of the EU, as a "difficult consumer" of tropical commodities, is being threatened by policies not of its making but those of its trade partner countries.
According to Dr. Ahmad Ibrahim, “ASEAN, with a population approaching 700 million, is an emerging economic bloc that can rival the likes of the European Union (EU).”
Add the economic influence of ASEAN countries to LATAM countries and its obvious that the EU does not hold the influence that Brussels imagined.
The success or failure of the EU's green ambitions are without a doubt, in the hands of developing countries.
Erik Solheim asked recently on global issues and climate change:
What do India, Indonesia and China have in common?
They are the three largest developing nations.
At the climate talks in Glasgow and Dubai, and for sure also later this year in Baku, intellectually lazy negotiators and commentators speak as if the West is leading the world on the environment.
They get it dead wrong. Europe was leading, ten years ago. Now it’s time the West starts learning. Asia is leading.
According to population projections by the UN, the top five countries by population size in 2050, will not include the European Union.
Where consumers dictate global markets, the EU’s green policies may inflict short term pain on the export revenue of producer countries but the long term pain may end up with the EU as it loses competitiveness according this report. Failure to revive the EU's competitiveness could result in an estimated loss of about €500 billion to €1 trillion of value added annually by 2030 according to McKinsey.
Beyond the projections of economists, the fears of the Eurozone finance chiefs in their focus on geopolitical economic security and ‘de-risking’ strategies show a real concern for the EU's competitiveness.
Environmental groups in the EU may shout all they want to push for green policies but an economically weakened EU with all its glorious green policies will only serve to remove the European Union as the definitive voice on green sustainable economies.
Published April 2024 CSPO Watch
Efforts to clean up the environmental impact of EU citizens have for the most part targeted imported goods with a bit of talk of restoring nature in the EU.
However, resistance against the lawmakers in Brussels has seen a backpedaling of policies including the diluted CSDDD. With the EU elections coming up, the current crop of policy makers are scaling back environmental rules for EU farmers. Further easing of environmental rules for EU farmers may come depending on the outcome of the EU agriculture ministers push to weaken deforestation rules.
In its struggle to find sustainable sources of food for Europeans, the arguments on soy, which is seen as a vital source of protein, exemplifies the challenges for Brussels.
The European Union is determined to achieve more open strategic autonomy in important policy areas. Today’s context is characterised by farmers protests and geopolitical, as well as economic, shifts. Food sovereignty becomes thus even more important.
Food sovereignty is an impossible goal when it comes to the EU's reliance on soy. According to this report published in Oilseeds and fats Crops and Lipids:
The European Union (EU) has a high demand for plant proteins, amounting to around 27 million tons of crude proteins in 2017. Today, the EU-27’s self-sufficiency rate varies substantially depending on the protein source among oil-protein crops (79% for rapeseed, 42% for sunflower but only 5% for soya), (European Commission, 2018). Consequently, EU-27 imports annually around 17 million tons of crude proteins (of which 13 million tons are soya based corresponding to 30 million tons of soya beans equivalent), essentially from Brazil, Argentina and the USA. In addition, until 2022, the EU imported about 1.5 million tons of crude proteins from sunflower and up to one million tons from rapeseed, both mostly from Ukraine.
As for farmers of cocoa, coffee and palm oil in non-EU countries, the EU risks confirmation of its double standards for environmental demands on agriculture if the infamous EU Deforestation Regulations, which has concerned exporting countries from Africa to Latin America and Southeast Asia goes ahead.
According to European NGO, FERN, the EU is confirming what palm oil producing countries have accused the EU of. A double standard.
“The message to the rest of the world will be clear: Europe is happy to take decisive action to end the destruction of forests abroad but isn’t prepared to do so at home”
Often accused of hypocrisy and protectionism by palm oil producing countries, Malaysia and Indonesia, the EU has created a defense of its policies with the adoption of the Anti-Coercion Instrument (ACI).
The ACI may come in handy for the EU as China challenges the European Commission on "pursuing protectionist actions at the expense of green initiatives by launching investigations into Chinese subsidies.
"We can't understand how the European Commission on the one hand carries the flag for green sustainable development and on the other hand undertakes protectionist operations," Wang Wentao said at an Italy-China economic forum in Verona.
The ACI could be the European Union’s definitive defense in creating Green Fortress Europe which protects EU jobs and industries but ultimately, the green ambitions of its multiple policies from CSDDD to EUDR may come to naught for tropical forests.
The thing is, the influence of the EU, as a "difficult consumer" of tropical commodities, is being threatened by policies not of its making but those of its trade partner countries.
According to Dr. Ahmad Ibrahim, “ASEAN, with a population approaching 700 million, is an emerging economic bloc that can rival the likes of the European Union (EU).”
Add the economic influence of ASEAN countries to LATAM countries and its obvious that the EU does not hold the influence that Brussels imagined.
The success or failure of the EU's green ambitions are without a doubt, in the hands of developing countries.
Erik Solheim asked recently on global issues and climate change:
What do India, Indonesia and China have in common?
They are the three largest developing nations.
At the climate talks in Glasgow and Dubai, and for sure also later this year in Baku, intellectually lazy negotiators and commentators speak as if the West is leading the world on the environment.
They get it dead wrong. Europe was leading, ten years ago. Now it’s time the West starts learning. Asia is leading.
According to population projections by the UN, the top five countries by population size in 2050, will not include the European Union.
Where consumers dictate global markets, the EU’s green policies may inflict short term pain on the export revenue of producer countries but the long term pain may end up with the EU as it loses competitiveness according this report. Failure to revive the EU's competitiveness could result in an estimated loss of about €500 billion to €1 trillion of value added annually by 2030 according to McKinsey.
Beyond the projections of economists, the fears of the Eurozone finance chiefs in their focus on geopolitical economic security and ‘de-risking’ strategies show a real concern for the EU's competitiveness.
Environmental groups in the EU may shout all they want to push for green policies but an economically weakened EU with all its glorious green policies will only serve to remove the European Union as the definitive voice on green sustainable economies.
Published April 2024 CSPO Watch