In 2023, global deforestation reached 6.37 million hectares. Tropical regions are severely affected, accounting for 96% of deforestation.
The European Union’s Deforestation Regulation will not be sufficient to reduce tropical deforestation. The delay in adoption should allow the EU to reflect on and learn from its issues, Euractiv wrote in an article.
EU postponed deforestation law implementation
The EU agreed to postpone the law’s implementation by 12 months but stated that it would not weaken its original provisions. The delay will allow third countries, operators, and businesses to fully prepare.
The legislation forbids the sale of particular goods in the EU that contribute to deforestation after December 31, 2020. Businesses must disclose due diligence data, such as the geolocation of producing land, to establish compliance.
Concerns and criticisms raised by industry and governments both within and outside the bloc prompted the European Commission to propose deferring implementation until December 30, 2025.
Deforestation destroys 6.37 million hectares worldwide
It occurs at a time when deforestation is destroying large areas. By 2023, it had grown to 6.37 million hectares worldwide. The issue is most severe in tropical regions, which account for 96% of deforestation.
Greenpeace described the postponement as “devastating,” as the EU will “continue to fuel worldwide forest loss for another 12 months.” Meanwhile, Fern expressed worries that businesses may leverage non-compliant goods by passing them through “no-risk” jurisdictions.
Despite the additional year until the introduction deadline, worries remain about whether the bill would force out deforestation-linked goods from EU supply chains, despite its noble intentions.
A paper published in the Ecological Economics journal titled “Will the EU deforestation-free products regulation reduce tropical forest loss?” contends that challenges to the rule are directly tied to its essential aspects.
Benefits and flaws of deforestation legislation
While the law represents a commitment to combatting deforestation, it receives criticism for its emphasis on demand-side tactics, a value-chain-centered intervention approach, and unilateralism.
Although tropical forests serve an important role in biodiversity, carbon storage, and climate regulation, ongoing deforestation highlights flaws in global governance frameworks. These are primarily related to agricultural commodity production.
The EUDR’s “theory of change” is evaluated based on its assumptions and expected consequences. Key problems include potential clashes with national policies in production countries such as Brazil, Colombia, and Indonesia, which are experiencing considerable forest loss.
The regulation’s emphasis on due diligence and trade measures may have unforeseen consequences, such as greater implementation costs for exporters and the “leakage” of deforestation practices to places beyond the regulation’s jurisdiction.
The study concludes that global collaboration and local policy frameworks should strengthen the EUDR, despite its importance in international environmental management.
Key steps in combating deforestation
Addressing socio-ecological issues and engaging stakeholders in producer countries is critical to meeting the aims of reducing deforestation and protecting human rights.
Despite being a key step in combating deforestation, experts believe that the effectiveness of EUDR is dependent on flexible implementation and ongoing support for affected parties.
The rule focuses on deforestation caused by agricultural goods imported into the EU, which has historically contributed to forest loss. Between 2019 and 2021, EU-linked deforestation accounted for 15% of worldwide deforestation due to trade across borders.
Uncovered ecosystems and damage to economies
While the EUDR prioritizes seven essential commodities that are responsible for the majority of deforestation, it does not include ecosystems like savannahs and wetlands, which are important for biodiversity and carbon sequestration.
The EUDR presents issues to developing countries, many of whom rely on regulated products for trade and GDP. Its implementation could destabilize these economies, particularly for smallholder farmers who lack the means to adapt.
Although the EU has allocated €70 million to help vulnerable trading partners, further study and tailored assistance are required to reduce the potential detrimental consequences.
Criticism also includes the EUDR’s strict and sector-agnostic approach, which ignores the complexity of supply networks and manufacturing techniques. This has prompted calls for more specific guidelines, stronger compliance procedures, and transitional solutions.
Experts emphasize the necessity of learning from these issues in developing future environmental legislation, particularly in terms of reconciling environmental aims with economic realities and cross-border collaboration.
