- In early October, the European Commission proposed a one-year postponement of the EU’s new deforestation regulation (EUDR) in order to assist global stakeholders, member states and other countries in their preparations.
- Is such a delay to be lamented, as many NGOs and commentators say? This is happening in a context of the weakening of many environmental measures, after all.
- “This ambitious regulation, with its undeniable objectives, is ill-conceived – because it ignores the problems of implementation – and is giving rise to unprecedented diplomatic tensions. Shouldn’t we take advantage of this probable postponement to try and correct some of the text’s major flaws?” a new op-ed asks.
- This article is a commentary. The views expressed are those of the author, not necessarily Mongabay.
A European Commission project to counter deforestation and forest degradation associated with “the making available on the Union market as well as the export” of certain agricultural products was unveiled in November 2021. The “Deforestation and Forest Degradation Regulation” (EUDR) was adopted in June 2023, and was due to come into force in early 2025 for large companies. But in early October 2024, the EC proposed a one-year postponement “in order to assist global stakeholders, member states and third countries in their preparations.”
A few months earlier, the Commission had postponed publication of the benchmarking analysis, which classifies countries into three risk categories (low, standard, high). The level of risk should determine the level of due diligence that importers must carry out when acquiring production that may have been associated with deforestation or degradation. Operators may be penalized for failing to carry out due diligence, even if it turns out that the imported product has not contributed to deforestation.
The regulation stipulates that, before a product is offered for sale on the European market (or exported), each operator will have to guarantee that it is not associated with deforested land after December 31, 2020, by geolocating the parcels from which it originates using a traceability system. Farmers (and foresters) will have to upload traceability data, including GPS coordinates, which will be compared with satellite images. The indication of plot boundaries is compulsory from four hectares upwards.
The products concerned are palm oil, soya, cocoa, coffee, beef, wood and natural rubber, as well as certain by-products (chocolate, furniture, tires, printed products, etc.). To remain compatible with WTO rules, the regulation is non-discriminatory and applies to both imported and exported products (hence the absence of the term “imported”).
The entry into force of the regulation, mistakenly referred to as “imported deforestation,” is therefore likely to be postponed for a year. Such a decision was to be expected, given the outcry from the EU’s major trading partners (Brazil, Indonesia, USA) and from many member states, who were a little late to realize that their beef, timber and soybean production was also affected by the plot-based traceability requirements.
Is such a postponement to be lamented, as many NGOs and commentators say? Admittedly, this is happening in a worrying context, that of the weakening of many measures in favor of the environment. The fact remains, however, that this ambitious regulation, with its undeniable objectives, is ill-conceived − because it ignores the problems of implementation − and is giving rise to unprecedented diplomatic tensions. Shouldn’t we take advantage of this probable postponement to try and correct some of the text’s major flaws?
Firstly, this regulation will not halt global deforestation, or only at the margins for certain sectors − such as cocoa, for which Europe remains the leading buyer − if China, India and other major consumer countries do not adopt similar provisions. According to the most recent studies, only 20% to 25% of global deforestation is associated with international trade, with the remainder stemming from consumption by forest countries themselves. A WWF study suggests that 16% of the deforestation associated with world trade would be attributable to the EU, or, at most, 4% of the 6.4 million hectares of forest converted to agricultural activities in 2023. The EU’s share of global agricultural imports is steadily declining, from 17.3% in 2000 to 12.2% in 2021, and this trend is set to continue. It is therefore highly likely that trade flows will largely be redirected towards other markets for products rejected by the EU.
For all that, Europe must “do its bit” to reduce imported deforestation, but it must do so while avoiding, as far as possible, head-on confrontation with its trading partners, particularly in developing countries.
Secondly, there are two particularly contentious aspects to this regulation. The definition of forest adopted by the EU − which is based on the FAO definition, with a minimum threshold of 10% tree cover − is independent of forest realities (a dense forest in Gabon is not a cleared forest in Chad) and national definitions of forests, and hence of deforestation. As a result, legal production in countries of origin will be deemed “deforestation-derived” by the EU due to these different definitions of what is or is not a forest.
Brazil, Malaysia and Indonesia, in particular, consider that their sovereignty over land use is not respected. For Indonesia, the EUDR constitutes a trade barrier, and would violate a country’s right to make sovereign decisions regarding the use of its land. Indonesia and Brazil express specific concerns about the criteria for categorizing countries into risk levels, which they say “are inherently discriminatory and punitive.” It should be noted that the United Kingdom, which adopted comparable legislation in 2021, and the USA, which will soon do so, have retained only the criterion of legality of production, without a universal definition of what a forest is.
The EU could envisage a “graduated approach” with tariffs − the proceeds of which would be entirely earmarked for programs to support small-scale producers in the South − for production that is legal in producing countries but deemed problematic by Brussels institutions. However, this option would require the introduction − at least until such time as “zero deforestation” guarantees are provided through certification − of tariffs for several of the agricultural products concerned (soy, cocoa, timber, rubber), tariffs which are often lowered to zero as a result of bilateral or multilateral agreements.
The requirement for plot-based traceability will exclude a large number of small-scale producers from European markets, where they are well represented. In September 2023, 17 ambassadors from developing countries wrote to the European authorities to protest against a “one-size-fits-for-all approach” that will primarily affect smallholders, “particularly vulnerable to EUDR.”
A 2023 study reported that 50-60% of the cocoa produced in Côte d’Ivoire was sold by “pisteurs,” often informal intermediaries, very difficult to integrate into a traceability system. What’s more, the lists of producers are not stabilized: between cocoa farmers registered by the Ivorian authorities and those registered by cocoa companies, the correspondence rate was only 6%.
However, a relaxation of this traceability requirement is conceivable. This would involve traceability not only at plot level, but also for “zero deforestation” territories, based on a project and a collective dynamic of local players (companies, small producers, local authorities and communities, NGOs, etc.) that would be independently verified and certified. Admittedly, this territorial traceability would offer fewer guarantees than individual traceability, but it would offer a more favorable prospect for small producers, and no doubt remove some of the opposition to the current version of the EUDR.
Alain Karsenty is an environmental economist and senior scientist at the French Agricultural Research Centre for International Development (CIRAD) in Montpellier, France. He is the author of dozens of scientific articles and is the co-author of several books.
This commentary was originally published here in French by Telos.
See related:
With Europe’s move to delay tropical forest protections, everything burns (commentary)
Citations:
Pendrill F., et al., 2022. Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation. Science, 377(6611). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abm9267
Chatellier V., Pouch T., 2023. The place of the European Union in world trade in agricultural and agri-food products. https://ideas.repec.org/p/hal/journl/hal-04353405.html
Brack D., 2023. Sustainable cocoa production in Côte d’Ivoire: financing needs and solutions for small-scale producers. UN-REDD, EFI.
