The European Union has delayed the implementation of a highly criticized regulation against deforestation by one year due to pressure from its trading partners. This is not the first time, notes the Dutch daily “De Volkskrant.” Shouldn’t Brussels learn to better promote its ecological ambitions to the world?
“Punitive,” “unilaterally imposed.” Brazil does not hold back when it denounces the new European legislation against deforestation in September. These rules indeed create new administrative burdens for Brazilian companies, particularly farmers who wish to export coffee, cocoa, palm oil, or soy to Europe, as they will be required to provide their GPS coordinates. European companies, for their part, will need to prove—with satellite images to back up their claims—that these products did not come from deforested land. Intermediaries will also need to document the origins of their goods, which can come from thousands of different plantations.
The Brazilian government laments that all this could harm its economy in a sharp letter to the Commission. It argues that the European Union (EU) is disregarding the country’s efforts to combat deforestation. Thus, in this letter, Brazil asks the EU to at least postpone the implementation of the new rules and to “urgently reconsider its approach.” Their trade relations are at stake.
Brazil seems to have made headway. At the beginning of October, the Commission proposed delaying the introduction of the new legislation until the end of 2025, a year later than originally planned. The pressure is not only coming from Brazil; numerous European companies, Indonesia, Malaysia, the United States, and the World Trade Organization (WTO) have all expressed their dissatisfaction with the content and the speed of implementing the law. Aren’t Brussels’ good intentions likely to damage its relationships with the rest of the world?
“Climate Colonialism”
This isn’t the first time such measures have stirred controversy. Take the carbon border tax that the EU plans to introduce in 2026. Currently, European companies must pay for their CO2 emissions, but most of their non-European competitors do not. To address this issue, the EU plans to implement a tax on imports of products like steel, iron, and cement, with a level comparable to the carbon price in the European CO2 market. The idea is to avoid unfair competition and ensure that all greenhouse gas emissions are accounted for, even when raw materials come from outside the EU.
However, developing countries find this tax unfair, as recently stated by WTO Director-General Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala in an interview with the British newspaper Financial Times. Especially since they themselves emit relatively little greenhouse gas. “They view this tax as a protectionist mechanism.” India has already threatened to file a complaint with the WTO.
According to Louise van Schaik, a climate policy expert at the Clingendael Institute in The Hague, it would be very detrimental for Europe if its relations with the rest of the world were to deteriorate. If it gives the impression of engaging in a form of “climate colonialism,” it could jeopardize its standing in the world.
This does not mean that Louise van Schaik considers these measures inherently bad. For years, she explains, the EU has tried to negotiate trade agreements with partner countries to address environmental issues like deforestation, but with little success. “I therefore understand that, at this stage, to combat deforestation, the EU opts for unilateral measures.”
Transparency About Union Interests
When taking measures that directly impact other countries, Louise van Schaik points out, it inevitably leads to some discontent. However, she believes it is entirely possible to limit the damage. In her view, Brussels has invested too little in diplomacy to make progress on this issue. “The EU has a primarily technocratic culture, focused on the technical feasibility of policies. Our diplomatic culture is underdeveloped.”
Thus, Brussels should seek to involve other countries earlier in the legislative process that concerns them, she recommends. In doing so, the EU must be transparent about its own interests. “The carbon tax also aims to help our companies become greener so that Europe is less dependent on energy from others.”
Of course, the EU does not intend to interfere in Brazilian law, assures European Parliament member Mohammed Chahim. Europe, he adds, must “be careful not to cast a moralizing finger at other countries.” There will always be stakeholders who criticize new sustainability laws, the politician asserts. “But once the laws are in place, you realize that these changes are possible, and you wonder why they weren’t made sooner.”
The EU needs to stay the course, he says, and continue resolutely on its path. On the other hand, Brussels must not ignore the criticisms of its trading partners. “Such a complex law will inevitably face difficulties in its initial stages. Often, lobbyists take advantage of this to dilute them. However, if there are legitimate objections, we must take them seriously.”
A “Brussels Effect” Worldwide
In this case, the problem partly stems from the fact that the Commission delayed giving precise instructions. It only announced these instructions at the beginning of October, barely three months before the scheduled date for the law’s implementation. This is the main criticism voiced by businesses and trading partners in their request for a delay.
The Commission should have provided its guidelines much earlier, confirms Christina Toenshoff from Leiden University. She finds it regrettable that things unfolded this way, saying that this legislation is “pioneering” in the field. However, she believes the text carries certain risks, particularly for small farmers. Intermediaries may indeed gravitate more towards larger plantations, which are easier to trace and have more resources to prepare for compliance. The Commission acknowledges this danger and is sending funds and organizing training to assist small farmers. Will these measures be sufficient? It’s hard to say at this point, Christina Toenshoff responds.
The implications of the carbon border tax also raise some concerns. Low- and middle-income countries are likely to be particularly affected, according to a German study published in 2023 in the specialist journal “Communications Earth & Environment.” This especially includes North African and Sub-Saharan African countries, which heavily depend on exports to the EU.
However, if Europe handles it well, these measures could give a significant boost to combating climate change, suggests Louise van Schaik. Given its size, the European market is very influential. The term “Brussels Effect” is even used: when the EU tightens its rules, it sometimes leads to changes worldwide.
This could very well be the case with the carbon border tax. Countries that start pricing greenhouse gas emissions from their steel or cement won’t have to pay a tax to Europe. Louise van Schaik concludes: “Diplomacy works with carrots and sticks. The carbon border tax is a stick. It can work, but it shouldn’t be imposed without having opened a constructive dialogue. Some countries can no longer tolerate European arrogance.”
