The EUDR may have little impact on reducing deforestation
What’s on your plate and in your house might be quietly clearing forests in the Amazon and the Congo Basin. The production of internationally traded agricultural and forest commodities is responsible for more than half of the global loss of forests and natural vegetation every year. To help reduce deforestation associated with the import of these products into the EU, the European Parliament passed the EU Deforestation Regulation on deforestation-free products (EUDR) in 2022. Set to take full effect by the end of 2025, the EUDR obliges all importers of soy, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, beef, forest products, and rubber – known as forest risk commodities – to provide proof that the production was legal according to national legislation in the producer country and not associated with any deforestation. However, new research based on expert assessments has raised doubts about whether the EUDR can effectively reduce or even slow down global forest loss:
First, in many producer countries, such as Brazil and Cameroon, the EU holds a relatively small market share of forest risk commodities. This means the vast areas heavily impacted by commodity production may not be addressed by the EUDR at all. At the same time, importers will then often be able to meet EU demand by buying from producers who do not engage in deforestation or from regions with a low deforestation risk, either within the same country or in other producer countries. Unless other major importing regions, such as China and the US, adopt similar policies, the EUDR alone would be likely to have little to no impact on reducing forest loss.
Second, the EUDR could weaken political support for existing domestic policies in producer countries that have effectively reduced deforestation caused by forest-risk commodity production. This has been observed, for example, in the case of Brazil’s Amazon Soy Moratorium, which has lost crucial political backing from certain national agro-industry and state-level administrations. Inconsistencies between specific rules of the EUDR and the Moratorium provided opponents with new arguments to renegotiate the existing set of rules.
Third, the EUDR imposes additional reporting obligations on many actors along forest risk commodity value chains, including those with limited resources like small landowners. The associated costs could disproportionately hurt small producers, processing companies, and logistics providers.
EU lawmakers must closely monitor whether the EUDR will make any tangible contribution to reducing the loss of tropical forests. Otherwise, companies can hide the deforestation footprint by simply rerouting imports through another country or region before they reach the EU. At the same time, researchers and policymakers must find more affordable and viable ways to reduce the negative environmental impacts of trade in agricultural and forest commodities, without harming vulnerable businesses in the producing countries. This could, for example, involve taxes on deforestation-linked commodities. The funds raised through the tax in the EU could be reinvested in producer countries to help protect and restore natural ecosystems and biodiversity.
Authors: Jan Börner[1]
Reviewers (alphabetical): Scilla Alecci[2], Laila Berning[3], Mathias Cramm[4], Alok Jha[5], Madeleine Ngeunga[6], Vinicius Sassine[7], and Rina Tsubaki[8]
References:
- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-024-02465-x
- https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4847389
- https://de.apdbrasil.de/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/EUDR_products_forest_conservation_Brazil.pdf
[1] University of Bonn
[2] International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ)
[3] University of Freiburg
[4] European Forest Institute
[5] The Economist
[6] Pulitzer Center
[7] Folha de S.Paulo
[8] European Forest Institute
