Former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger once famously asked the question “Who do I call if I want to call Europe?” to highlight the multi-headed nature of the European Union, its lack of a single authorized voice and often contradictory approach to policy. Decades on from Mr Kissinger’s observation, there is still no clear answer to this question.
Similarly, European academics and think-tank experts, when speaking around the world, are often asked “what is the EU position?” on any given topic. This is an excellent question, because it reveals an important truth: there is rarely, if ever, a settled “EU position” on anything. Rather, the EU institutions are a web of differing opinions, constant internal debates and various policy positions jostling for dominance.
Open Europe versus Fortress Europe
From a high-level strategic perspective, two broad ideologies – often diametrically opposed to each other – have dominated debates on European policy throughout the EU’s recent history.
The first group sees the EU as primarily an open and liberal, free-market project. They have advocated for EU Enlargement, widening and strengthening the European internal market, while pursuing free trade deals with global partners.
The second group sees the EU as primarily a regulatory project: a ‘Fortress Europe’ of trade barriers, protectionism and subsidies. They have advocated for the ‘Green Deal’ of environmental regulations, carbon border tariffs and other trade restrictions masquerading as measures to aid sustainability.
This internal debate on which ideological path to follow continues to this day, and it is deeply relevant for the EU’s trading partners. The differences of approach on the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) – a law which came into force last year which affects commodity exports (mostly palm oil, rubber and cocoa) to the EU – represent a concrete example of these internal debates.
Sabine Weyand, the Director-General for Trade in the European Commission, recently criticized the EUDR, telling an international conference that the EU should learn some lessons from the opposition that Europe is currently facing with respect to the Deforestation Regulation. She underlined that the Regulation is extremely burdensome and that it has pushed away a number of partners that the EU needs. The EU’s top trade official also highlighted that countries resent the increased use of autonomous trade measures: unilateral actions that other countries rightly see as imposing on them extra-territorial effects of European legislation.
The concerns of third countries are justified
The comments from Sabine Weyand should be taken seriously in every country affected by EUDR, since her words represent a senior EU official accepting that the complaints of third countries are well-founded, and that EUDR is hurting the EU’s competitiveness, causing unnecessary conflicts and undermining European trading relations.
While Sabine Weyand is correct in her analysis, she is also not alone as an increasing number of voices are beginning to support her stance. The EU Commission’s Directorate-General for International Partnerships, for example, recently wrote a briefing paper that argued the EU needs to “thoroughly assess the impact of EU environmental regulations on our partners and mitigate negative externalities. Going forward it will be key to impact-assess environmental regulations before these are agreed upon.”
Furthermore, the pro-trade caucus in Brussels making such comments does not happen in a vacuum. It happens because several trading partners have asked for a delay in EUDR implementation to reduce the costs and burdens of the legislation. Several Agriculture Ministers from EU Member States have also made the same demand, as reported recently by The Financial Times. This campaign has already made a significant impact: the Commission has agreed to delay the EUDR benchmarking process, which removes one specific burden from EU trading partners.
The need for a delay in new EU deforestation rules
Despite the negative wave of sentiment towards EUDR, no delay in EUDR has been announced thus far. The simple reason for this is that not everyone in Brussels is part of the pro-trade camp. On the contrary, there is a well-organized grouping in Brussels that takes the opposite view.
The EU Commissioner for Environment, Virginijus Sinkevicius, for example, recently commented that he and his team are working to ensure that EUDR legislation is operational from the beginning of 2025. While the European Commission is duty bound to continue to work to meet the deadlines set into the legislation, the EU Directorate General responsible for Environmental issues nonetheless recognizes that there is internal – and external – pressure mounting for a delay.
Environmental Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) lobbies, which have long occupied positions of influence in Brussels, have been quick to publicly support the need for regulation and quick implementation. A letter from several NGOs in April demanded that EU Member States and the European Commission must now swiftly implement EUDR while noting pointedly that they are aware that certain industry associations, third countries and even agriculture ministers from EU Member States are criticizing the EUDR or certain aspects of it.
The reality is that there is no current consensus in Brussels on how to move forward with EUDR. It showcases how EU decision-making is based on trying to balance different internal factions. When that is not possible – as is the case with EUDR – the best option is usually a delay, and over the longer-term perhaps a total re-think of the EU’s approach.
This will be a crucial issue for the new European Commission.
Meanwhile, Henry Kissinger’s long-standing question remains unanswered.
