EU imports still drive substantial global deforestation, report unveils

Published 15:55 on June 27, 2024  /  Last updated at 15:55 on June 27, 2024  / Giada Ferraglioni /  Biodiversity, EMEA

EU member states continue to drive deforestation from their direct imports, with the bulk of clear cutting associated with cocoa and oil palm products.

EU member states continue to drive deforestation from their direct imports, with the bulk of clear cutting associated with cocoa and oil palm products.

That’s according to analysis released Thursday by Trase, a data initiative founded by nonprofits the Stockholm Environment Institute and Global Canopy, and commissioned by civil society group Fern.

On average, between 2019 and 2021, EU imports were linked to 190,500 hectares of cleared forests, an area more than 10 times the size of Brussels, the report said.

The analysis comes as EU member states gear up for implementing the regulation on deforestation-free products (EUDR) adopted last year, which will come into force on Dec. 30.

The law aims to ban the trade of commodities products on deforested lands. The rules will apply to cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soya, and wood, including products that contain, have been fed with, or have been made using these commodities.

Over the three years assessed by Trase – the most recent ones with available data – EU imports were associated with 15% of the global deforestation linked to direct trade.

The top countries of origin were Cote d’Ivoire (19.9%), which represents the leading source of EU deforestation exposure, Brazil (16.0%), Indonesia (11.6%), Ghana (8.7%), and Malaysia (4.7%), the analysis showed.

Together, those countries account for 61% of the EU’s total deforestation exposure.

“Overall, there has been a substantial decrease in EU deforestation exposure from EUDR commodities in the last few years, amounting to a fall of 35% between 2018 and 2021, despite the quantity of imported commodities remaining high,” wrote lead author Mark Titley.

“However, trends vary over time and by commodity, highlighting the need to keep high-risk regions and commodities under constant review.”

According to the analysis, the top imported commodities linked to deforestation were cocoa (33.7%), oil palm products (19.3%), coffee (13.0%), soy (9.2%), and cattle products (8.9%).

“For some commodities, particularly palm oil, rubber and wood, figures are likely to be underestimated since it was not possible to link imports of more processed forms of these commodities to deforestation,” Titley noted.

COUNTRIES AND COMMODITIES

As the analysis underlined, there are significant differences between countries. The Netherlands’ direct imports accounted for an average of 69,500 ha of deforestation – nearly triple the next highest, Spain, which accounted for 24,200 ha.

“This is because the Port of Rotterdam in the Netherlands is an important entry point for imports to the EU,” Titley said.

“It highlights the crucial role that Dutch authorities will have for enforcing the EUDR requirements on import checks.”

Source: Trade

Figures vary greatly from country to country again in terms of commodities, with palm oil products being the most relevant in the Netherlands and Spain, while soy took the top spot in Denmark, Slovenia, and Romania.

Cocoa was the biggest source of deforestation exposure for Belgium, France, Germany, and Italy, while in Portugal the highest figure was related to coffee.

“The individual country factsheets reveal the contrasting demands placed on different European authorities, and show where their unique sourcing patterns mean their deforestation exposure is concentrated,” said Titley.

“This data can help them identify where to focus attention, inform dialogue with producer countries, and target support for producers needing to comply with the regulation.”

While emphasising the potential for the EUDR to reduce the EU’s exposure to deforestation, the paper pointed out that some commodities not covered by the regulation – such as maize and cashew nuts – also pose significant risks.

Recently, several countries have requested the EU to postpone the regulation due to its potential impact on local economies. In May, Australia argued that an additional 24 months would be necessary to prepare regulators and producers, while Indonesia and Malaysia lodged complaints against the EU claiming the ban is discriminatory.

By Giada Ferraglioni – giada@carbon-pulse.com

*** Click here to sign up to our twice-weekly biodiversity newsletter ***