EUDR May Not Be Enough To Save Tropical Forests, EU Needs Further Reflection On Directive – CoffeeTalk

The European Union’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) has been postponed by 12 months, allowing the EU to reflect on its challenges and learn from its shortcomings. The regulation prohibits the sale of specific commodities within the EU that contribute to deforestation post-December 31, 2020, and businesses must submit due diligence data to demonstrate compliance. The delay comes at a time when deforestation is claiming sizeable areas, particularly in tropical regions, which account for 96% of deforestation. Greenpeace called the delay “devastating” as the EU will continue to fuel global deforestation for another 12 months.

The EUDR’s focus on demand-side measures, a value-chain-centred intervention approach, and a unilateral stance have led to concerns about its effectiveness. Key concerns include potential conflicts with national policies in producer countries like Brazil, Colombia, and Indonesia, which experience significant forest loss. The regulation’s focus on due diligence and trade measures may create unintended effects, such as increased implementation costs for exporters and “leakage” of deforestation practices to regions outside the regulation’s reach.

A policy brief by the Bruegel think tank argues that the EUDR’s success depends on clear communication, flexible implementation, and sustained support for affected stakeholders. The regulation targets deforestation caused by EU imports of agricultural commodities, which have historically played a role in forest loss. Between 2019 and 2021, EU-linked deforestation accounted for 15% of global deforestation related to international trade.

The EUDR poses challenges for developing countries, many of which depend on the regulated commodities for trade and GDP. Its implementation risks disrupting these economies, especially for smallholder farmers who lack the resources to adapt. Additional research and targeted assistance are necessary to mitigate potential negative effects. Critics also highlight the EUDR’s rigid and sector-agnostic approach, which does not consider the diversity of supply chains and production practices.

In conclusion, the delayed rollout of the EUDR underscores the importance of learning from its challenges for future environmental legislation, particularly in balancing environmental goals with economic realities and international cooperation.

Read More @ Euractiv