header-logo header-logo

12 December 2022
Issue: 8007 / Categories: Legal News , EU , Environment , Climate change litigation , Regulatory
printer mail-detail

Reforms for deforestation-free supply chains

Lawyers are advising businesses to start preparing for regulatory reforms on deforestation-free supply chains.

Last week, the European Parliament and the EU Council of the EU reached a provisional agreement on a regulation on deforestation-free supply chains. Under its terms, companies must issue due diligence statements that source materials were produced on land not subject to deforestation since 31 December 2020 and comply with legislation relating to human rights, including the rights of indigenous people. The source materials affected include palm oil, cattle, soy, coffee, timber and rubber, as well as derived products such as chocolate, beef, leather and furniture.

Companies will not be able to sell products within the EU without this statement. Penalties for non-compliance will be a maximum of 4% of the total annual turnover in each member state.

Companies will also be required to collect precise geographical information on the farmland where the commodities that they source have been grown, so that they can be checked for compliance.

The European Commission will run a benchmarking system that will assess countries or areas and their level of risk. Obligations for companies will depend on the level of risk.

The regulation must now be formally adopted before it can come into force, after which operators and traders will be given 18 months to adjust. Micro and small traders will be given a longer adaptation period.

Solicitors at Osborne Clarke commented in an update that ‘even though this regulation will not come into force for at least 18 months, businesses should consider the source of their products now, and think through the systems that will need to be put in place to produce or obtain the due diligence statement.

‘In the UK, the Environment Act 2021 will place a similar duty on businesses to have a due diligence system in place and to report annually on forest-risk commodities’.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Recent allegations surrounding Peter Mandelson and Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor have reignited scrutiny of the ancient common law offence of misconduct in public office. Writing in NLJ this week, Simon Parsons, teaching fellow at Bath Spa University, asks whether their conduct could clear a notoriously high legal hurdle
A landmark ruling has reshaped child clinical negligence claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Jodi Newton, head of birth and paediatric negligence at Osbornes Law, explains how the Supreme Court in CCC v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] UKSC 5 has overturned Croke v Wiseman, ending the long-standing bar on children recovering ‘lost years’ earnings
A Court of Appeal ruling has drawn a firm line under party autonomy in arbitration. Writing in NLJ this week, Masood Ahmed, associate professor at the University of Leicester, analyses Gluck v Endzweig [2026] EWCA Civ 145, where a clause allowing arbitrators to amend an award ‘at any time’ was held incompatible with the Arbitration Act 1996
back-to-top-scroll