TWN Info Service on Sustainable Agriculture
20 June 2025
Third World Network

WTO: Several countries question the EU over its deforestation regulation
Published in SUNS #10245 dated 19 June 2025

Geneva, 18 Jun (D. Ravi Kanth) — Several countries appear to have raised a volley of questions at the World Trade Organization over the European Union’s controversial Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), with Brussels having been put “on the back foot” in defending its seemingly unjustifiable measures, including its carbon border adjustment mechanism (CBAM), said people familiar with the development.

Even as the Doha agriculture negotiations remain stuck on the mandated issues with no consensus on what ought to be the “deliverables” for the WTO’s upcoming 14th ministerial conference (MC14), to be held in Yaounde, Cameroon on 26-29 March 2026, the farm-exporting countries are seemingly not leaving out any opportunity to question members like the EU, India, the United States, and China among others, over their respective measures in agriculture, according to a document (G/AG/W/255) issued on 6 June.

The points raised by members are aexpected to come up for discussion at a meeting of the WTO’s Committee on Agriculture on 23-24 June.

A cursory glance at the 57-page document suggests that several members with different trading priorities have severely questioned the EU over its deforestation regulation.

In the face of criticism over its proposed regulation over the last few years, the EU has somewhat modified its criterion for imposing its restrictive measures with a seemingly novel approach of ranking/rating countries in terms of their compliance with the regulation, said people familiar with the development.

THE EUDR

Brazil and Paraguay, two major farm-exporting countries, questioned the application of the EU’s deforestation regulation, particularly focusing on the simplification and facilitation measures in favour of “large companies”, presumably EU operators.

The two South American countries asked the EU to explain “the focus on large companies instead of SMEs.”

Brazil and Paraguay noted that the EU’s simplification package contains no measure aimed at alleviating the burden on farmers who are small-holders, particularly those from developing and least-developed countries (LDCs).

Further, Brazil and Paraguay raised several questions regarding the implementation of the EUDR.

These include:

1. Can the EU explain, in detail, how national authorities of EU member States are being instructed to deal with the documentation to be submitted by EU operators and the sampling of shipments according to different risk categories?

2. According to Article 16.8 of EUDR, could you confirm that percentages of 1%, 3% and 9% will be applied, per country, as a percentage of total exports to all EU member-countries and considering all products together?

3. What kind of expertise and training is being developed and delivered to ensure the efficiency of these proceedings and to avoid trade disruptions?

4. What is the standing of information on legality and legislation provided by the exporting government in comparison to information provided by private certifiers?

5. Could you confirm that, as a general rule and in cases there is no reason to proceed otherwise, if an operator presents all the necessary documents, customs authorities will release the cargo and the substantial analysis of the documentation will take place only at a later stage by the competent authorities?

6. What guidance is being given to operators in addition to the published documents and FAQs?

7. How is the EU going to enforce the placing of covered goods on the internal market by producers of EU member States, in the absence of border and customs controls (and leaving aside, of course, the fact that all of them voted themselves out of the higher risk categories)? Will you have a different control for EU products? What is the methodology accepted by the EU for risk mitigation analysis?

8. Since each competent authority has the responsibility to implement their own compliance procedures, we have observed considerable differences between EU Observatory’s maps and official local mapping data, in some cases with national official information being more accurate; how the EU sees the role of official data in comparison with EU Observatory data in the evaluation process?

9. Each shipment could contain hundreds of direct and indirect suppliers’ data; how does the EU foresee the process of uploading all documents concerning each supplier for each cargo shipped?

India noted a media report (posted on euractiv.com) quoting EU Agriculture Commissioner Mr. Christophe Hansen, stating that countries assessed as posing “no risk” of deforestation should be exempted from additional obligations under the European Union’s anti-deforestation regulations.

In this regard, New Delhi asked the EU “what specific simplifications or flexibilities in due diligence requirements can be expected under the EU’s anti-deforestation framework, especially in the context of ongoing discussions around reducing burdens for countries deemed to pose no/low risk?”

Aside from Brazil, Paraguay and India, New Zealand, Canada, the US and China together raised some questions on the EUDR “given its potential implications for trade in agricultural and forestry goods.”

New Zealand said while it shares the EU’s desire to address deforestation, and to halt and reverse global forest loss, the EU’s proposed program should be based on the international rules-based trading system.

Welcoming the EU’s recent efforts to simplify the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation and provide further guidance materials, the four countries (New Zealand, Canada, the US and China) said that “it remains our firm view that the regulation does not take the most trade-facilitative approach to achieve its stated objectives.”

“We are concerned about the counter-productive impact the implementation of this regulation will have on global trade, including on efforts to address global deforestation.”

The four countries said they “remain unsure how the EU plans to address the concerns of trading partners who manage their forest resources sustainably, given that the regulation takes a zero-tolerance approach.”

They asked the EU to elaborate “how it will consider other countries’ forest management systems in the way the regulation is applied, including, for example, whether a country is experiencing net afforestation or a net forest area increase?”

The four countries said that while the EU noted that the legislative proposal for the regulation was based on an impact assessment, and “we note that the benchmarking exercise has identified the majority of countries as “low” risk, we remain concerned about the substantial compliance burden on producers, and exporters in third countries at all levels of benchmarking, such as the requirement to provide geolocation data of production locations.”

They asked the EU to elaborate further “how it justifies the proportionality of these measures, especially for countries with negligible deforestation risk?”

Noting the EU’s response on review timelines for the regulation, the four countries said that “in light of ongoing concerns raised by trading partners on the potential impacts of the regulation, will the EU reconsider and defer its review to expand the scope of commodities and ecosystems until the trade impacts of the current regulation are addressed and the effectiveness of the regulation in addressing its objectives can be considered?”

US AVIAN FLU INITIATIVE

Under a separate agenda item on the US initiative to combat avian flu and reduce egg prices, India said the US Department of Agriculture (USDA)’s initiative announced on 26 February 2025 is a “five-pronged strategy, which includes financial relief for farmers, vaccine research, regulatory reforms, and temporary egg import- export options,” including a commitment of US$1 billion by the USDA in funding and regulatory measures to address the crisis and stabilize the poultry industry.

India sought to know whether the US plans to notify its initiative in its domestic support notification, and if so, under which box?

Similarly, India asked the US to provide more details on the “temporary egg import-export options” it is planning to enforce, and how does the US plan to notify it?

On Washington’s Emergency Commodity Assistance Program, the United Kingdom, Canada, and China said there have been media reports that the US “has announced plans to expedite the distribution of 10 billion USD in direct economic assistance to agricultural producers under the Emergency Commodity Assistance Program (ECAP) for the 2024 crop year, with payments to be based on acreage.”

Ahead of formal notification, the UK, Canada, and China asked the US to provide additional information on the design of this programme, and in particular:

1. How payments are calculated and the eligibility criteria.

2. Whether eligibility or payment levels will be linked to current production levels, crop choice or market prices.

3. How the United States plans to categorise this support under its WTO obligations.

In a similar vein, the UK and China questioned the “upcoming Agricultural Trade Promotion Programs to be launched by the United States for the 2026 financial year, which will make available 251 million USD annually to support the expansion of export opportunities.”

The UK and China asked Washington to share further details on the structure and scope of these programmes, and specifically:

a. Whether any elements of the programmes involve support linked to export volumes or market outcomes.

b. The criteria used to determine who is eligible for support.

c. How the United States plans to categorise this support under its WTO obligations.

US QUIZZES INDIA

Under another agenda item, the US asked India to provide information on its General Services expenditure in its domestic support notifications.

The US said that India has provided comprehensive support under the Green Box for General Services, but it has neglected to complete its notification as column 2 for all support under General Services.

The US sought to know from India the “name and description of measure with reference to Annex” for all expenditures of support under General Services.

Meanwhile, on India’s domestic support policies, the US and Paraguay maintained that “for a number of years WTO Members have repeatedly raised concerns with the methodologies utilized by India to notify its domestic support.”

According to the US and Paraguay, members have also repeatedly raised concerns regarding information that appears to be excluded from India’s domestic support notifications and the attached Annexes and Statistical Appendices.

They alleged that despite Members’ persistent concerns, India’s most recent Table DS:1 notification continues to utilize the same problematic methodologies, which are also inconsistent with India’s own past notifications and Agriculture Supporting Table (AGST) methodologies.

Several Members over a number of years have also submitted counter-notifications on various products to address some of these concerns, they said.

The US and Paraguay said that “rather than resubmit the same questions regarding this new notification from India that have been asked multiple times before: Please explain India’s process for reviewing its current agricultural domestic support policies in terms of effectiveness and considering reforms to those policies.”

On India’s export duty on molasses, the EU asked India to clarify “if the 50% export duty on molasses effective since January 2024 is intended as a temporary intervention and whether there are plans to reduce or remove this duty in the near term, particularly in the context of ensuring predictability for international supply chains?”

It remains to be seen whether the Agriculture Committee meeting on 23-24 June will provide some constructive insights into the emerging global farm trade, said people familiar with the development. +