Should Orangutans Matter More than Wolves to The EU?
Ursula von der Leyen accused of vendetta against wolves over death of favourite pony
Commission may relax protections over fears large packs are 'a danger'
The European Union, as led by the European Commission, wants to protect forests and biodiversity.
Under the flagship ‘Green Deal”
In 2019, the incoming European Commission, led by President Ursula von der Leyen, announced the European Green Deal (EGD)
The European Commission has adopted a set of proposals to make the EU's climate, energy, transport and taxation policies fit for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
On top of CBAM, the European Union, has introduced other legislations including the EU Deforestation Regulations and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, all in the name of legislating a sustainable future for Europeans.
As expected, the CBAM has met resistance from EU member states as well as the EU’s trade partners, including India.
The CSDDD has created similar controversies with European industries expressing their concerns, alongside with NGOs and small farmers.
But the loudest howls of protests over the European Union’s unilateral decisions on sustainable goods and climate change, is the European Union’s Deforestation Regulations (EUDR).
From the protests of Malaysian palm oil farmers and their counterparts in Indonesia, to the concerns of coffee farmers in Vietnam and cocoa farmers in the Ivory Coast, the EUDR has a next to zero chance of delivering its ambitions in saving forests and biodiversity, unless the EU works with producing countries.
Global Protests Against EUDR
Mercopress-The “Global South”, as made up of Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic and Thailand, and the goods involved are seven, palm oil, soybeans, beef cattle, coffee, cacao, wood and rubber, have objected to EUDR.
New Straits Times-Seventeen Like-Minded Countries (LMCs) including Malaysia have requested the European Union (EU) to consider producing countries' concerns in the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).
According to the Indonesian Embassy in Brussels, the producing countries collectively expressed their concerns regarding the regulation, which came into force on June 29, via a joint letter signed by their ambassadors.
Besides Malaysia, the signatories are Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, and Thailand.
"The producing countries encourage EU leaders to intensify engagement with producing countries in formulating clear and detailed implementing acts and guidelines for the EUDR, including differentiated compliance and due diligence regimes for commodities and products from smallholders in producing countries," the embassy said in a statement.
EU Stance on European Forests and Wolves Sending Wrong Message to Trade Partners
As the protests from its trade partners grow against the European Union’s stated ambitions to be a climate leader, domestic policies on the same issues of forests and biodiversity may provide yet more fodder for critics of the European Green Deal. There is a stark hypocrisy being displayed by the European Commission against its own biodiversity.
Networks and NGOs representing more than 200 organisations from all EU member states sent a letter to the EU Commission urging them to follow up on its commitment to create a coordinated forest monitoring system. This was reported by FERN NGO in ALL EYES ON THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, AS A CRUCIAL EU DECISION ON FOREST MONITORING IS DUE.
Of particular concern to conservationists, should be the EU Commission’s communication to the European Parliament and Council which stated:
Forests and other wooded land 1 cover over 43.5 2 % of the EU’s land space and they are essential for the health and wellbeing of all Europeans.
The claim contrasts sharply with independent reports that say forests in the European Union stand at 1.2% land coverage, and are continuing to disappear according this 2023 report from Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
The overdue report referenced by FERN, can be read here. Its an inspirational piece of writing by the European Commission, that should encourage global citizens to do more to save forests in the European Union and globally.
Less inspiring is the European Commission’s position on European wolves.
The return of the wolf to EU regions where it has been absent for a long time is increasingly leading to conflicts with local farming and hunting communities, especially where measures to prevent attacks on livestock are not widely implemented.
President von der Leyen said: “The concentration of wolf packs in some European regions has become a real danger for livestock and potentially also for humans. I urge local and national authorities to take action where necessary. Indeed, current EU legislation already enables them to do so.”
The Commission is launching today a new phase in its work on addressing the challenges related to the return of wolves.
Does the roles played by the wolf or bear matter for European biodiversity?
According to the World Economic Forum, on its report on wolves and bears in Europe, in relation to climate change:
The presence (or absence) of apex predators in ecosystems can also have a huge impact on climate – researchers estimate that the presence of wolves in all boreal forests in the United States would increase carbon storage by up to 99 million tonnes.
Yet the misguided suggestion of simply eradicating wolves is expensive, frequently unfeasible, and means we lose the wide-ranging benefits that these amazing animals can deliver.
So how honest are the European Commission’s proposals to protect global forests and biodiversity while fighting climate change?
The expansion of human activities in Indonesia and Malaysia in recent times, has also led to deforestation and human-orangutan conflicts. Should palm oil producing countries, adopt the same approach towards orangutans, just as the European Commission has, against wolves? Which is to manage orangutan populations to a level where oil palm farms are not threatened?
It would be ironic if Dolly the donkey's demise, saved European wolves by exposing the hypocrisy behind the Green Deal. As Indonesia appeals to the Netherlands to help abolish the EUDR, there is hope for his appeal as Leonard Mizzi, head of unit at the Commission's department for International Partnerships informs that financial firms are unwilling to support the EUDR.
Published September, 2023. CSPO Watch
Under the flagship ‘Green Deal”
In 2019, the incoming European Commission, led by President Ursula von der Leyen, announced the European Green Deal (EGD)
The European Commission has adopted a set of proposals to make the EU's climate, energy, transport and taxation policies fit for reducing net greenhouse gas emissions by at least 55% by 2030, compared to 1990 levels.
On top of CBAM, the European Union, has introduced other legislations including the EU Deforestation Regulations and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, all in the name of legislating a sustainable future for Europeans.
As expected, the CBAM has met resistance from EU member states as well as the EU’s trade partners, including India.
The CSDDD has created similar controversies with European industries expressing their concerns, alongside with NGOs and small farmers.
But the loudest howls of protests over the European Union’s unilateral decisions on sustainable goods and climate change, is the European Union’s Deforestation Regulations (EUDR).
From the protests of Malaysian palm oil farmers and their counterparts in Indonesia, to the concerns of coffee farmers in Vietnam and cocoa farmers in the Ivory Coast, the EUDR has a next to zero chance of delivering its ambitions in saving forests and biodiversity, unless the EU works with producing countries.
Global Protests Against EUDR
Mercopress-The “Global South”, as made up of Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, Ivory Coast, Ecuador, Guatemala, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, Dominican Republic and Thailand, and the goods involved are seven, palm oil, soybeans, beef cattle, coffee, cacao, wood and rubber, have objected to EUDR.
New Straits Times-Seventeen Like-Minded Countries (LMCs) including Malaysia have requested the European Union (EU) to consider producing countries' concerns in the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).
According to the Indonesian Embassy in Brussels, the producing countries collectively expressed their concerns regarding the regulation, which came into force on June 29, via a joint letter signed by their ambassadors.
Besides Malaysia, the signatories are Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Colombia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Ivory Coast, Mexico, Nigeria, Paraguay, Peru, and Thailand.
"The producing countries encourage EU leaders to intensify engagement with producing countries in formulating clear and detailed implementing acts and guidelines for the EUDR, including differentiated compliance and due diligence regimes for commodities and products from smallholders in producing countries," the embassy said in a statement.
EU Stance on European Forests and Wolves Sending Wrong Message to Trade Partners
As the protests from its trade partners grow against the European Union’s stated ambitions to be a climate leader, domestic policies on the same issues of forests and biodiversity may provide yet more fodder for critics of the European Green Deal. There is a stark hypocrisy being displayed by the European Commission against its own biodiversity.
Networks and NGOs representing more than 200 organisations from all EU member states sent a letter to the EU Commission urging them to follow up on its commitment to create a coordinated forest monitoring system. This was reported by FERN NGO in ALL EYES ON THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION, AS A CRUCIAL EU DECISION ON FOREST MONITORING IS DUE.
Of particular concern to conservationists, should be the EU Commission’s communication to the European Parliament and Council which stated:
Forests and other wooded land 1 cover over 43.5 2 % of the EU’s land space and they are essential for the health and wellbeing of all Europeans.
The claim contrasts sharply with independent reports that say forests in the European Union stand at 1.2% land coverage, and are continuing to disappear according this 2023 report from Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
The overdue report referenced by FERN, can be read here. Its an inspirational piece of writing by the European Commission, that should encourage global citizens to do more to save forests in the European Union and globally.
Less inspiring is the European Commission’s position on European wolves.
The return of the wolf to EU regions where it has been absent for a long time is increasingly leading to conflicts with local farming and hunting communities, especially where measures to prevent attacks on livestock are not widely implemented.
President von der Leyen said: “The concentration of wolf packs in some European regions has become a real danger for livestock and potentially also for humans. I urge local and national authorities to take action where necessary. Indeed, current EU legislation already enables them to do so.”
The Commission is launching today a new phase in its work on addressing the challenges related to the return of wolves.
Does the roles played by the wolf or bear matter for European biodiversity?
According to the World Economic Forum, on its report on wolves and bears in Europe, in relation to climate change:
- Grey wolf numbers have increased by 1,800% and brown bear numbers have increased by 44% since the 1960s.
- Studies show that wildlife can help lock up atmospheric carbon and increase soil fertility.
- Restoring, rewilding, and conserving species can be climate game-changers by magnifying carbon uptake by 1.5 to 12.5 times, a new report says.
The presence (or absence) of apex predators in ecosystems can also have a huge impact on climate – researchers estimate that the presence of wolves in all boreal forests in the United States would increase carbon storage by up to 99 million tonnes.
Yet the misguided suggestion of simply eradicating wolves is expensive, frequently unfeasible, and means we lose the wide-ranging benefits that these amazing animals can deliver.
So how honest are the European Commission’s proposals to protect global forests and biodiversity while fighting climate change?
The expansion of human activities in Indonesia and Malaysia in recent times, has also led to deforestation and human-orangutan conflicts. Should palm oil producing countries, adopt the same approach towards orangutans, just as the European Commission has, against wolves? Which is to manage orangutan populations to a level where oil palm farms are not threatened?
It would be ironic if Dolly the donkey's demise, saved European wolves by exposing the hypocrisy behind the Green Deal. As Indonesia appeals to the Netherlands to help abolish the EUDR, there is hope for his appeal as Leonard Mizzi, head of unit at the Commission's department for International Partnerships informs that financial firms are unwilling to support the EUDR.
Published September, 2023. CSPO Watch
|
|
|