26 Amendments of Radan KANEV related to 2020/2006(INL)
Amendment 19 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A
Recital A
A. Whereas biologically diverse forests being natural carbon sinks are indispensable in the fight against climate change in line with the Paris Agreement’s goals to hold the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1, 5°C above pre-industrial levels, as well as for climate change adaptation and biodiversity conservation; whereas not only deforested areas, but also forests degraded by human intervention can turn into a source of carbon dioxide;
Amendment 22 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital A a (new)
Recital A a (new)
Amendment 47 #
Motion for a resolution
Recital B
Recital B
B. Whereas Union consumption contributes to 10% of global deforestation;represents 10% of global deforestation; in real figures this means e.g. 4,45 Mha embodied deforestation for soy, 1,3 Mha for livestock and about 198,000 ha for timber1a; _________________ 1aFeasibility study on options to step up EU action against deforestation commissioned by the European Commission, 2018; available at: https://ec.europa.eu/environment/forests/p df/feasibility_study_deforestation_kh0418 199enn_main_report.pdf p. 26-29
Amendment 86 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 a (new)
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Notes that the production of forest and ecosystem-risk commodities does not negatively impact on local communities only through direct deforestation, ecosystem degradation and land grabbing, but also through water-grabbing that can affect forest and other ecosystems; therefore points out that a legal framework to halt deforestation and degradation of natural ecosystems should cover the issue of the legality of water supply for the production of forest- and ecosystem-risk commodities;
Amendment 93 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 1 b (new)
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Stresses that the existence of large areas of forests help prevent desertification of continental regions; proposes that the protection of forests also as a moisture source receive strong consideration in development and trade policies; highlights for example that as much as 40% of the total rainfall in the Ethiopian highlands - the main source of the Nile - is provided by moisture recycled from the forests of the Congo Basin and that halting deforestation in the region is relevant also for the issue of the climate- refugee crisis;
Amendment 105 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 2
Paragraph 2
2. Welcomes business’ growing awareness of the problem of global deforestation, the need for corporate action and corresponding commitments; emphasises, however, that companies’ voluntary anti-deforestation commitments often only cover parts of their supply chains and were, as of yet, not sufficient to halt global deforestation; notes however that not only progressive action is taken and highlights the recent withdrawal of the palm oil giant Wilmar from the HCSA1a; _________________ 1a High Carbon Stock Approach Steering Group (HCSA) is an organisation made of NGOs and industry partners that aims to implement a protocol to rate land based on its biodiversity and levels of carbon stocks in soil and vegetation, with the aim of leaving valuable ecosystems untouched and apply this approach throughout the supply chain
Amendment 126 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 3
Paragraph 3
3. Points out that third-party certification schemes have played an important role in bringing together business and civil society to develop a common understanding of the problem of deforestation; observes, however, that voluntary third-party certification schemes alone, to date, are not effective in halting and reversing global deforestation; notes that voluntary third-party certification can be an auxiliary tool to assess and mitigate deforestation risks when designed and fully implemented well with regard to the well- defined, measurable and ambitious sustainability criteria it is based on, the robustness of the certification and accreditation process, independent monitoring, possibilities to monitor the supply chain, requirements to protect primary forests and promote sustainable forest management;
Amendment 130 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 4
Paragraph 4
4. Criticises that third-party certification and labels alone unduly shift the responsibility to decide whether to purchase deforestation-free products to the consumers; stresses that the policy of certification usually requires a product to only comply with the minimum certified content threshold which is often lower than 50% 1a; expresses confidence that customers are not even aware of this fact; therefore emphasises that third- party certification can only be complementary to, but cannot replace, thorough due diligence processes of companies; _________________ 1ae.g. from Rainforest Alliance Labelling and Trademarks Policy https://www.rainforest- alliance.org/business/wp- content/uploads/2020/05/Rainforest- Alliance-Labeling-and-Trademarks- Policy-May-2020.pdf
Amendment 146 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 5
Paragraph 5
5. Welcomes, in this regard, the calls from a large number of companies to introduce Union rules for mandatory due diligence in forest risk commodities supply chains; points out that while due diligence process in itself does not entail a ban, an effective and dissuasive penalty regime must be applied in order to help prevent deforestation and natural ecosystems degradation;
Amendment 171 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 7
Paragraph 7
7. Welcomes the intention of the Commission to tackle global deforestation but asks for a more ambitious policy approach; calls on the Commission to present a proposal for an EU legal framework based on mandatory due diligence, reporting, disclosure and third- party participation requirements, as well as liability and penalties in case of breaches of obligations for all companies placing for the first time on the Union market commodities with the highest forest and ecosystem risks and products derived from these commodities, and access to justice, environmental remediation and remedy for victims of breaches of these obligations; traceability obligations should be placed on traders on the Union market, to ensure sustainable and deforestation-free value chains, as laid down in the Annex to this resolution; emphasises that the same legal framework should apply to Union- based financial institutions providing money to companies that harvest, extract, produce or process forest and ecosystem- risk commodities and derived products;
Amendment 184 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 8
Paragraph 8
8. Points out that forest and ecosystem-risk commodities covered by this EU legal framework should be determined on the basis of objective and science-based considerations that such commodities pose high risks for the destruction and degradation of forests and high-carbon stock and biodiversity-rich ecosystems, as well as for the rights of indigenous people and human rights in general or that production of such commodities has led to water-grabbing and indirect degradation of ecosystems by over-abstraction and pollution of water sources;
Amendment 197 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9
Paragraph 9
9. Emphasises that such an EU legal framework should not only guarantee the legality of harvesting, production, extraction and processing of forest and ecosystem-risk commodities and derived products in the country of origin, but also the sustainability of their harvesting, production, extraction and processing and should not contribute to increase in the area logged, or to deforestation of primary forests even in case the legal framework of a country of origin allows it; Emphasises in this context the relevance of the 2008 cut -off date and that any other, later date would miss out on the impact of adopted policies incentivising the consumption of forest and ecosystem- risk commodities;
Amendment 204 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 9 a (new)
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Highlights that changing the regulatory framework in order to legalize use of certain areas and modifying tenure rights does not take away the negative impact on human rights and the environment caused by the implementation of this change; therefore stresses that due diligence criteria must include other elements on top of the legality of action;
Amendment 214 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 10
Paragraph 10
10. Stresses that local communities, indigenous peoples, land and environmental defenders often are on the frontline of the fights to preserve ecosystems; notes that in some regions conflicts over the use of lands and resources are the main cause of violence against indigenous peoples1a; is concerned that the degradation and destruction of forests and other valuable ecosystems frequently goes along with human rights violations or follows from it; urges, therefore, to include the protection of human rights, in particular land tenure, land and labour rights, with a special view to the rights of indigenous peoples, within the future EU legal framework; _________________ 1areport by the Brazilian Attorney General’s office: http://www.mpf.mp.br/pgr/noticias- pgr/conflitos-associados-a-terra-sao- principal-causa-de-violencia-contra- indigenas-e-comunidades-tradicionais- no-brasil-segundo-mpf
Amendment 238 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 12
Paragraph 12
12. Believes that these obligations should apply to all companies placing forest and ecosystem-risk commodities (FERC) on the Union market, irrespective of their size or place of registration; believes that in a fragmented end-market, the inclusion of smaller and larger companies is key to ensure both large-scale impact and consumer trust; emphasises that thwhile regulatory framework mustshould not give rise to undue burdens on small and medium-sized producers or prevent their access to markets and international trade; recognises, therefore, in a fragmented end- market, the inclusion of smaller and larger companies is key to ensure both large-scale impact and consumer trust; and that due diligence, reporting and disclosure requirements must be proportionate to the level of risks associated with the given commodities;
Amendment 245 #
13. Is convinced that the EU Timber Regulation, especially its due diligence requirements, represents a good model to build upon for a future EU legal framework to halt and reverse EU-driven global deforestation, but that a lack of implementation, limited scope of products covered and enforcement of the EU Timber Regulation, including applied penalty regimes and discrepancy between them among the Member States, means that it does not live up to its spirit and intent; is of the opinion, therefore, that lessons can be learnt from the EU Timber Regulation for improved implementation and enforcement rules for a future EU legal framework to halt and reverse EU-driven global deforestation;
Amendment 252 #
Motion for a resolution
Paragraph 13 a (new)
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Reiterates that imports to the EU easily continue even if it is established that EUTR -compliant imports of the respective commodity from a respective country are impossible1a; _________________ 1a e.g. the case of teak from Myanmar- from the webpage of the Federal Office for Agriculture and Food of Germany: ´´Presently, EUTR-compliant teakwood imports from Myanmar are impossible´´ https://www.ble.de/SharedDocs/Pressemitt eilungen/EN/2018/180724_Myanmar.htm l. as reported by Environmental Investigation Agency https://eia- international.org/news/timber-firms-are- getting-illicit-myanmar-teak-in-through- europes-back-door/
Amendment 301 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 1 – paragraph 2 – point c
Annex I – point 1 – paragraph 2 – point c
c. production practices, including the water abstraction aspect, of economic operators harvesting, extracting, supplying, and processing forest and ecosystem-risk commodities (FERCs) or producing FERC- derived products in the Union internal market;
Amendment 331 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
Annex I – point 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 2
- do not originate from natural forests and natural ecosystems undergoing degradation, andincluding indirectly by water over-abstraction
Amendment 335 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 2 a (new)
Annex I – point 2 – paragraph 2 – indent 2 a (new)
- do not originate from illegal water abstraction; absence of legal framework to protect and control utilisation of water resources in the country of origin of the product or commodity is considered illegal water abstraction for the purpose of the proposed legislation, and
Amendment 350 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 2 – paragraph 4
Annex I – point 2 – paragraph 4
The proposal should cover all commodities that are most frequently associated with deforestation, natural forest degradation, and natural ecosystem conversion and degradation. These commodities should be listed in an annex to the proposal and comprise at least palm oil, soy, meat, sugarcane1a, leather, cocoa, coffee, rubber, commodities covered by Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council2a and maize and all intermediate or final products that are derived from these commodities, and products that contain these commodities. In the event that the derived products contain input from more than one commodity covered by the proposal, due diligence should be performed with respect to each of these commodities. Commodities covered by Regulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council2 (‘the EU Timber Regulation’) should be integrated into the scope of the proposal within three years from the date of entry into force of the proposal. _________________ 2_________________ 1aThe EU was seen as an important prospective sugar market for the Mercosur countries in the Agreement 2aRegulation (EU) No 995/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 October 2010 laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 295, 12.11.2010, p. 23).
Amendment 397 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 3 – point 3.2 – paragraph 2
Annex I – point 3 – point 3.2 – paragraph 2
For that purpose, FERCs placed on the Union market, in raw form or as products derived from or containing such commodities, should not be harvested, extracted or produced from land that had the status on 1 January 2008 of natural forest or natural ecosystem, in accordance with the definition laid down in Section 3.3 “Definitions”, and still has that status, but where the land has been subject to changes amounting to degradation. It should only be legally possible to place on the Union market a commodity that has been harvested, extracted or produced in compliance with conservation objectives and it did not lead to the loss or degradation of ecosystem functions on orthe land, adjacent to the land or belonging to the same river basin as the land from which it was harvested, extracted or produced.
Amendment 400 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 3 – point 3.2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Annex I – point 3 – point 3.2 – paragraph 2 a (new)
For that purpose FERC placed on the Union market in raw form or as products derived from or containing such commodities, should not be harvested, extracted or produced by illegal extraction of water, including in the form of so called water-grabbing, or emanating from a situation of absence of a legal framework protecting water resources, covering chemical, hydromorphological and quantitative status of water bodies.
Amendment 432 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 3 – point 3.3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 5 – point d
Annex I – point 3 – point 3.3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 5 – point d
d. Natural ecosystems that have been partially degraded by anthropogenic or natural causes (e.g., harvesting, fire, climate change or, invasive species, pollution, water over-abstraction ) but where the land has not been converted to another use and where much of the ecosystem’s composition, structure, and ecological function remain present or are expected to regenerate naturally or by management for ecological restoration.
Amendment 436 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 3 – point 3.3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 6
Annex I – point 3 – point 3.3 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 6
Of these natural ecosystems, next to land with high biodiversity value ecosystems and land with high-carbon stock as referred to in points (c) and (d) of Article 29(3) and point (a) of Article 29(4) of Directive 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council4 mangroves should fall under the scope of the proposal. _________________ 4Directive (EU) 2018/2001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources (OJ L 328, 21.12.2018, p. 82).
Amendment 519 #
Motion for a resolution
Annex I – point 4 – point 4.1 – paragraph 3 – point f – paragraph 1
Annex I – point 4 – point 4.1 – paragraph 3 – point f – paragraph 1
Third-party certification schemes can complement and inform the risk assessment and mitigation components of due diligence systems, provided that these schemes are adequate in terms of scope and strength of sustainability criteria and meet adequate levels of transparency, impartiality and reliability. Such schemes should only award certification to products with 100% certified content. Third-party certification schemes should also meet specific governance criteria consisting of independence from the industry, inclusion of social and environmental interests in standard-setting, independent third-party auditing, public disclosure of auditing reports, transparency at all stages, and openness. It is only after the economic operator has performed such an assessment of the scope and strength of sustainability and of the governance criteria that it may decide to take into account third-party schemes where necessary and relevant. However, third- party certification should not impair the principle of the economic operator’s liability.