EU ban on deforested commodities India awaits Supreme Court’s verdict on LGBTQ marriage

Emma Darlington

Global Editor

On December 6th, 2022, the EU launched an agreement for an ambitious law which prevents companies from placing commodities which are related to deforestation on the EU market. Deforestation is pushing biodiverse lands towards an irreversible tipping point. According to the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), 420 million hectares an area larger than the EU was lost from deforestation from 1990 to 2020. Global Witness estimates that the EU contributes 16% of deforestation associated with international trade. It is about time some form of responsibility is taken.

The specific commodities targeted are palm oil, cattle, soy, coffee, cocoa, timber, and rubber (this includes any material as well which is derived from these products). As things stand, consumers have no exact way of quantifying which of their purchased commodities are linked to deforestation. However, this is all about to change. Once final approval has been agreed upon by the EU commission, “operators and traders will have 18 months to adhere to the new regulation and smaller companies 24 months”. In order for companies to sell their products, they will have to generate a due diligence statement requiring data on the geolocation of their commodity, information of the time period of production, supplier name, buyer name and verifiable evidence that the product is deforestation free. Evidence must also prove that human rights were “respected”, particularly indigenous people’s rights within the guidelines of the particular country.

With an increase in transparency and accountability, this is a fundamental step in reforming the supply chain model, towards a just and sustainable direction.

China is one of the largest, contributors to deforestation, without its cooperation real change will never be achieved. Companies have to comply with national human right laws from where their product was derived. However, what of countries where indigenous rights merely do not exist? How can one ensure enforcement? Should it really be left up to the state? Why are rights not upheld to an international standard?

The Brazilian Indigenous leader Dinaman Tuxa believes the ban is not ambitious enough, failing to protect deforestation from wetlands, semi-arid forests and savannahs which are vital carbon sinks.

Despite ecosystems being at high risk, more needs to be done in the protection of indigenous communities who are also facing the mounting consequences of unstainable supply chains. The “Deforestation” ban is a tremendous attempt to reach zero deforestation by 2030, however it lacks the ambition to be really effective.

Declan Cobain Global Writer

The 13th of March 2023 will mark the Indian Supreme Courts decision on whether same-sex marriage should be legalised in India. If this ruling succeeds it would go against the views of the the Conservative Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Hindu Nationalist Party Bhartiya Janata.

According to the Human Rights Campaign, same-sex marriage is legalised in 32 countries including for example, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Norway. Twenty-two countries legalised this nationally through legislation, such as Switzerland. Two countries legalised through enacted legislation after a court mandate in South Africa and Taiwan. A further 10 countries legalised it nationally through the country’s court decisions in which India is set on following the same path.

The current legal situation in India has changed vastly since 2008. The first milestone change was in 2014 when India legally recognised the “third gender”; three years later made sexual orientation a vital attribute of people’s privacy. The historic milestone was in 2018, which removed the colonial-era law with the decriminalisation of homosexual sex, which was a landmark victory for LGBTQ rights in India. Now, in 2023 the Supreme Court faces the decision to legalise samesex marriage. Suppose this ruling is favourable to the LGBTQ Community, it will make India the largest democracy with such rights for the community.

The government has an anti-LGTBQ stance, opposing the court ruling. The head of Rashtriya

Swayamsevak Sangh, which is a Hindu nationalist group that is the ideological parent of Modi’s party, stated that LGBTQ people are “a part of the Indian society” It appears more common that the older generation and more religious people tend to have more anti-LGBTQ views, opposed to the younger generations. According to an online research study, 30% agree with this, 20% have no opinion, and 50% disagree that being a part of the LGBTQ+ community should be a crime.

The right to marry is fundamental and should be recognised as a human right. With the LGBTQ communities being barred from marriage, they face many negative implications. Not only does it impact personal liberties such as owning and inheriting property, but also in terms of adoption and economic constraints. LGBTQ couples are not allowed to have children born with the help of an Indian surrogate mother and can only apply for adoption as single parents. If this ruling succeeds, it would be a huge step towards the acceptance and recognition of the LGBTQ community.