Deforestation, forest degradation, and the EU’s response
Ever wondered what goes into making your favorite chocolate bar, shampoo, pet food, bedroom closet or toilet paper? You might be surprised to discover they could hide some secret ingredients: a pinch of deforestation and a dash of forest degradation. Many everyday products are made using imported commodities like cocoa, palm oil, soy, or wood, which cause deforestation and forest degradation in the tropics and subtropics. Overall, one-quarter of tropical forest loss is linked to expanding agriculture for export, and losing a forest means losing the beneficial ecosystem services it provides, such as carbon sequestration, wood production, or water purification.
Consumption of everyday products in Europe can drive significant conversion of natural ecosystems in countries like Brazil, Indonesia, and Côte d’Ivoire. But along with European consumers, many other stakeholders globally affect forest destruction and conservation, like other consumer markets, companies along globalized supply chains, policymakers, public agencies enforcing laws, local populations with different rights and access to land use, and civil society aiming to safeguard the environment. This means that forests face multiple interests and pressures, challenging their governance.
The international community has not agreed on globally valid laws on forests and land use, although many public policies and private regulations from national to international levels try to tackle these urgent issues. In Europe, policymakers seek to reduce the EU’s role in commodity-driven deforestation with the new EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR), which obliges companies in the EU to ensure that their sourcing of seven key agricultural and forest commodities does not directly cause deforestation and forest degradation. However, rather than becoming a global game changer for forests, this could merely result in “cleaning up” of supply chains for the EU market, according to new research by CLEVER, a research project funded by the EU. This means that in a globalized world, even if the EUDR was to be implemented strictly according to the rules, so that all EU supply chains became perfectly deforestation- and land degradation-free, different spillover effects in these markets would still limit what global reductions in deforestation and forest degradation this move could achieve. For instance, commodity markets could be segregated, so that the ‘deforestation-free’ (and more expensive) products go to the EU, while less sustainable (and cheaper) ones go to other markets with no or fewer environmental safeguards. The EUDR could also weaken or delegitimize some well-functioning forest conservation policy mixes among Europe’s major trading partners, such as the Amazon Soy Moratorium in Brazil. Furthermore, the EUDR poses governance challenges due to the way it was developed without seeking agreement of stakeholders outside the EU and sometimes misalignment with national policies in producing countries. This suggests that to tackle deforestation and forest degradation effectively, policy makers must carefully customize actions by taking into account existing policies.
Still, from a positive perspective, the EUDR sets an example that could influence other global consumer countries of agricultural and forest commodities to do the same: strictly regulating the import of products causing forest loss. This development could materialize through international cooperation and policy diffusion across companies and governments alike. Multilateral partnerships and societal pressure, such as trend setting by the civil society, can all support more forest-friendly supply chains.
The EUDR, while well-aligned with broader sustainability goals, introduces both regulatory opportunities and challenges for producer and consumer countries. To avoid unintended consequences, such as conflicting standards, better policy coordination is required. Although the EUDR closes a significant regulatory gap in requesting legal and deforestation- and land degradation-free agricultural and forest commodities, countries also need to come together to find workable solutions – such as supporting the lack of enforcement of existing domestic environmental regulations on the ground. Finally, the EUDR and private sector policies should not divert attention from traditional conservation measures, such as protected areas or payments for environmental services, as they remain key to combating deforestation at its source.
Authors (alphabetical): Laila Berning[1], Mathias Cramm[2], Metodi Sotirov[3], Rafaella Ferraz Ziegert[4], and Sven Wunder[5]
Contributors (alphabetical): Abubakar Shidiki[6], Claudia Azevedo-Ramos[7], Dario Schulz[8], Hassina Uwiringiyimana[9], Herman Zanguim[10], Lucie Temgoua[11], and Martin Tchamba[12]
Reviewers (alphabetical): Scilla Alecci[13], Alok Jha[14], Madeleine Ngeunga[15], Gustavo Magalhaes de Oliveira[16], Neus Sanjuan[17], and Vinicius Sassine[18]
[1] University of Freiburg
[2] European Forest Institute
[3] University of Freiburg
[4] University of Freiburg
[5] European Forest Institute
[6] University of Dschang
[7] Universidade Federal do Pará (UFPA)
[8] European Forest Institute
[9] European Forest Institute
[10] University of Dschang
[11] University of Dschang
[12] University of Dschang
[13] International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)
[14] The Economist
[15] Pulitzer Center
[16] University of Bonn
[17] Universitat Politècnica de València
[18] Folha de S.Paulo