Uncertain outcomes for palm oil
June, 2019 in Issue 2 - 2019, Comment
Elections to the European Parliament took place in May, changing the composition of the EU’s assembly, at least to a certain extent. While the approach towards palm oil by the European Parliament and its Members (MEPs) after the elections remains largely uncertain, it is clear that palm oil had many outspoken critics in the previous legislature. They had driven the issue forward and contributed to shaping the debate within the EU and its member-states in recent years (see Box).
The key function of the European Parliament is its role in the ordinary legislative procedure to adopt EU laws. The European Commission (EC) submits legislative proposals to the European Parliament and the Council of the EU (the Council), which must then reach agreement. One of the main recent pieces of legislation affecting palm oil has been the recast of the EU’s Directive on Renewable Energy Sources.
In addition to debating and voting on legislative proposals prepared by the EC, the European Parliament is also empowered to conduct public hearings and to draft, debate and adopt resolutions on its own initiative. This is an important tool for the European Parliament to set issues; initiate debates; put pressure on the EC, the Council and on other stakeholders; as well as to suggest the political desire to act in a given area.
In particular, the Resolution on Palm Oil and Deforestation of Rainforests (the Resolution) of April 4, 2017, showcased the clear anti-palm oil bias of the Parliament and caused months of debate; but as a non-binding resolution, it did not have any immediate legal consequences. Still, such debates can be damaging and ultimately consequential as they put pressure on the EC and alert other EU stakeholders and the greater public.
With all the negative bias towards palm oil, the more reasonable voices are often overlooked, although they do exist. A small number of MEPs continuously tries to contribute to the various debates.
An important example is MEP Alberto Cirio (Group of the European People’s Party). He intervened repeatedly with respect to various developments, noting the complexities of the issue; the use of palm oil by businesses based in the EU; and the efforts that have been achieved in certain producing countries, in particular in Malaysia.
In the context of the debate over the Resolution, MEP Cirio praised Malaysia, which he stated had made significant investments to move away from exploitation of the environment. He concluded by expressing support for labelling to ensure the proper traceability of palm oil.
Earlier in the process, MEP Cirio had tabled an amendment in the Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, which would have added the following to the Resolution: ‘calls on the [EC] to reject claims like ‘palm oil free’ as – by implying that the product is unsuitable for the health and/or the environment and/or the rights of the local communities in the cultivating countries and/or the wildlife – [they] send a wrong and misleading message and provide the whole supply chain [with] an adverse market incentive’.
MEP Schreijer-Pierik (Group of the European People’s Party) also underlined that palm oil is not the main driver of deforestation and that there is growing demand for food in the world, with palm oil being essential for the EU’s food industry.
Activism on hold
Between May 23 and 26, citizens in all 28 EU member-states (including the UK, since its exit from the EU has been postponed) elected 751 MEPs for the next five-year term until 2024.
At this time, it is still largely uncertain what the elections and the new composition of the European Parliament will mean for palm oil and the issues affecting palm oil. However, it is clear that legislative activity will likely slow down during 2019, as dossiers are closed, postponed and then slowly taken up again after the constitution of the new Parliament. The final plenary session of this legislative period was held in mid-April.
The opening session is set for the first week of July, thereby taking place shortly before the Parliament’s summer recess from August until the next plenary session in mid-September. One of the first tasks of the new Parliament will be the election of the next President of the EC, as the term of the current EC concludes on Oct 31, 2019.
Hence, from mid-April to mid-September – possibly even until the end of the year, considering the renewal within the EC – no major legislative developments are to be expected.
After years of political activism from the European Parliament, or at least certain MEPs, the legislative and political activity will largely see a pause. It can be expected that there will be increased parliamentary activity leading up to the elections and then a period of virtual standstill from April to October.
The assumption is that nationalist forces throughout Europe will increase their representation and it is likely that their rhetoric will be largely against imports and in search of easy targets to attack. Hopefully, palm oil will not become yet again one such target and the debate will be informed by science and facts, rather than demagogy or hidden agendas.
Therefore, 2019 might be a good opportunity for palm oil producing countries to take control again of the debate on palm oil and drive the issues forward on the basis of their own initiatives and agendas. Activities should be planned and issues strategically framed.
FratiniVergano
European Lawyers
Active Legislative Period on Palm Oil and Forests
A number of Members of the European Parliament made it their task to push the debate on palm oil and oil palm cultivation during the previous legislative term, often in the context of deforestation and forest management.
In early 2017, the European Parliament debated and adopted the Resolution on Palm Oil and Deforestation of Rainforests.
The Resolution originated from a Public Hearing on Palm Oil and Rainforests: What can the EU do to stop deforestation?, held on March 17, 2016; it was organised by the European Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety (ENVI). The tone of the hearing was overwhelmingly anti-palm oil and, as a result, all interested stakeholders, including Malaysian palm oil, were placed in a negative light.
According to the European United Left/Nordic Green Left European Parliamentary Group, the organisation of the public hearing was initiated by Kateřina Konečná, MEP from the Czech Republic, during a meeting of the ENVI Committee. At the hearing, Ms Konečná, stated that the situation in palm oil producing countries was a disaster in the making and that the EU should work towards the reduction of the cultivation of oil palm.
Another significant comment came from MEP Benedek Jávor (Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance), Vice-Chair of the ENVI Committee, who claimed that the EU did not have time for more studies and that an Action Plan on Deforestation and Forest Degradation must lead to strict regulations on palm oil and other forest products, as well as stricter biofuel regulations. A rather extreme comment came from MEP Eleonora Evi (Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy Group), who expressed the opinion that she did not have confidence even in sustainable palm oil, in part due to ‘failures’ of the certification mechanisms.
Following the public hearing, MEP Konečná became the responsible rapporteur to draft the text of a resolution by the European Parliament. After discussions within various committees of the European Parliament, the ENVI Committee tabled, on March 20, 2017, the text of a draft Resolution on Palm Oil and Deforestation of Rainforests.
The Resolution addressed a number of aspects related to palm oil production and contained a significant number of calls on the European Commission (EC). Importantly, the Resolution called ‘for the EU to introduce minimum sustainability criteria for palm oil and products containing palm oil that enter the EU market’.
On April 3, 2017, the European Parliament debated the Resolution and then adopted it the following day. In the context of the debate, MEP Konečná stated that, in general, work should focus on moving towards sustainable forms of production for all products, and criticised first-generation biofuels, which increased CO2 emissions and whose production contributed to forest fires. MEP Konečná further stated that palm oil was “not the greatest evil that we know, but certainly is a major product” and that the EU “shouldn’t just talk, but should do” things to address the issue.
Again, a number of MEPs spoke out against palm oil. Some reiterated rather simplistic perceptions; others highlighted certain aspects, such as palm oil as a biofuel feedstock, sustainability standards and traceability. At the end, the European Parliament’s plenary adopted the Resolution with 640 votes in favour, 18 against and 28 abstentions.
In 2018, the European Parliament continued its discussions on forest management and deforestation, debating and adopting the ‘Resolution on Transparent and Accountable Management of Natural Resources in Developing Countries: The case of forests’.
Inter alia, it notes that ‘the expansion of palm oil plantations has led to massive forest destruction and social conflicts that pit plantation companies against indigenous groups and local communities’. With regard to palm oil, the resolution largely focuses on sustainability schemes and traceability in order to ensure that only sustainable palm oil is imported into the EU.
Finally, the European Parliament has strongly lobbied for the phase-out of palm oil as a biofuel feedstock in the EU. While not expressly containing such a ban, the EU’s revised Renewable Energy Sources Directive hides the ‘ban’ of palm oil biofuel behind rules that will apply to all biofuel crops. More specifically, the revised Directive calls for the determination of ‘low indirect land-use change-risk biofuels’. The use of biofuels that do not fall within this category was agreed to be frozen at their 2019 level, with the EC then required to recommend phase-out strategies for the time between 2024 and 2030.
While the EC insisted that there is no ‘ban’ on palm oil, MEPs touted the compromise as the end for palm oil- and soybean-based biofuels by 2030. The issue was driven by Bas Eickhout (Group of the Greens/European Free Alliance), who served as the rapporteur for this legislative initiative for the ENVI Committee.
