You're browsing our English site, so by default we are only showing content in English. If you'd prefer to view all available content regardless of language, please change this switch.
You're browsing our English site, so by default we are only showing content in English. If you'd prefer to view all available content regardless of language, please change this switch.
The new deforestation regulation proposal published on Wednesday 17 November by the European Commission is the most ambitious global legislative initiative on deforestation to date.
Yet while it is an important step forward, the current proposal has some serious gaps that threaten to limit its effectiveness, particularly as regards the protection of human rights, including the land and territorial rights of indigenous peoples and forest communities.
Here are some of the key points:
The regulation applies to cattle, palm oil, soy, wood, cocoa and coffee. It requires businesses that sell or export these commodities in the EU to undertake due diligence to ensure that their production has not involved deforestation or forest degradation and has complied with national laws in the country of production.
The proposal is more ambitious than similar legislative initiatives in the UK and the USA, as it regulates not only illegal deforestation, but any deforestation linked to the production of these forest-risk commodities.
The proposed regulation doesn’t require compliance with international human rights law standards, in particular respect for customary tenure rights and the principle of free, prior and informed consent. This is a significant limitation for the rights of indigenous peoples and forest communities, whose rights are often inadequately protected by national laws.
There are likely to be substantial challenges with verification and enforcement by the designated competent authorities of EU member states, particularly in relation to compliance with national laws of producer countries. Assessment of compliance is likely to be plagued by issues including language barriers, lack of easy access to producer country laws, incoherent producer country legal frameworks and lack of legal expertise on these (multiple) foreign legal systems.
Access to information and transparency is limited under the regulation. While companies are required to trace to farm or plantation level, this information (and most other information from the due diligence process) will not be publicly disclosed. Companies are only required to publish general annual reports on their due diligence systems.
There are limited avenues for access to justice for indigenous peoples and forest communities harmed by companies’ failure to comply with their obligations. Neither civil nor criminal liability is included. Third parties do have a right to raise substantiated concerns with competent authorities (who may choose to take action against the company); however, the effectiveness of this option for indigenous peoples and forest communities is undermined by the lack of access to information, lack of a centralised enforcement system and potential language barriers, among other things.
The regulation fails to impose obligations on the financial sector, which is a major gap in delinking European influence on global supply chains that are causing deforestation.
Countries will be classified under a benchmarking system as either “low-risk”, “standard risk” and “high risk”. A “low-risk” classification substantially reduces due diligence obligations on products sourced from these areas – creating a significant risk of loopholes.
The proposed regulation only places strict requirements to avoid deforestation and forest degradation – it places no direct restrictions on the destruction of other ecosystems, such as grasslands, peatlands, mangroves and more, which means peoples and communities living in these areas may face increased risks of dispossession.
While the deforestation regulation is a welcome and long overdue proposal, the failure to incorporate human rights is a major shortcoming, that is likely to limit its effectiveness and generate perverse outcomes. Deforestation and human rights violations are highly correlated, and indigenous and forest peoples are recognised as some of the best guardians of the forest. Not dealing with deforestation and human rights due diligence in an integrated way is a missed opportunity for a more effective and comprehensive regulation and out of step with global sustainability standards.
The EU Parliament approved a one-year delay for companies to comply with the deforestation regulation, now set to apply from December 2025 for large operators and June 2026 for small businesses.
The new guide by Forest Peoples Programme outlines how indigenous and forest peoples can use the EU Deforestation Regulation and the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive to address corporate-linked human rights violations and environmental harm.
The EU Parliament has sent the EUDR back to the committee for interinstitutional trilogue negotiations to grant companies an additional year for implementation.
Nestlé, Ferrero, Unilever and Mars have joined calls by other food and drink manufacturers in opposing the European Union’s delay to deforestation laws.
The Cocoa Coalition, comprising companies and civil society organizations, supports the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) and urges swift adoption of the delayed implementation without reopening negotiations, while also calling for support to smallholder farmers for compliance.
Friends of the Earth Europe and 225 organizations urge the EU to reject a proposal delaying the EU Deforestation Regulation, emphasising its importance in combating deforestation and supporting human rights.
The EU's anti-deforestation regulation faces criticism for potentially allowing major deforestation contributors to avoid being classified as "high risk," which could weaken the regulation's effectiveness.
The article argues that the EU's anti-deforestation law should prioritize input from frontline communities, as governments in Malaysia and Indonesia are undermining Indigenous rights and providing unreliable forest data.
New analysis by Earthsight reveals European consumers have been buying beef and leather from firms linked to illegalities in the Brazilian Amazon uncovered by the Environmental Investigation Agency. According to Earthsight this serves as a reminder that without the EU Deforestation Regulation, European consumption will continue to drive deforestation and rights abuses overseas.
The companies consider it important that the European Union adopts a robust law that minimises the risk of conversion and degradation of natural ecosystems (alongside deforestation and the degradation of natural forests) as well as human rights violations, associated with commodities and products placed on the EU market.
A delegation of indigenous, human rights, and environmental organisations published a statement urging the European Commission to include independent civil society groups in ongoing key talks with Malaysia and Indonesia over its anti-deforestation rules.
Companies – and the EU Competent Authorities that have the responsibility of implementing the law - now have 18 months to prepare before the law comes into action, at the end of 2024.
EU legislators reached political agreement in the early hours of Tuesday, 6 December, to pass a new law to ensure products on the EU market are not linked to the destruction or degradation of forests. WWF and Greenpeace welcome the law as breakthrough but also point to some of its weaknesses.
While the law is a historic first, it fails to include strong provisions to protect the land rights of Indigenous Peoples and local communities, who time and time again have proven to be the best guardians of the forests, says NGO Fern.
Negotiations between the Commission, Parliament and Council are set to finalise next week. One crucial provision of the draft law currently being targeted by certain EU member states, is the protection of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.
A delegation of MEPs will now take the Parliament's position to negotiations with the EU Member States, who agreed a range of changes in the EU Council in June to weaken key elements of the proposed law.
Measures would oblige banks to conduct due diligence to prevent the financing of deforestation, boost protections for indigenous communities, and add rubber and leather to the list of imported products that would be screened for deforestation links.
The Council adopted its negotiating position (general approach) on a proposal to limit the consumption of products contributing to deforestation or forest degradation.
Almost all plantations linked to deforestation are currently owned by just three multinational companies, which together have made deals worth billions of euros with European banks.
Indonesian civil society groups call for the EU proposal to be strengthened by including SMEs, a complaint mechanism, and by considering the impact on small holders, indigenous groups and communities
Lessons from the implementation of the EU Timber Regulation show that Member States’ Competent Authorities often fail to meaningfully implement and enforce the law in practice, argues Earthsight
Some EU member states want more time to implement the upcoming anti-deforestation law, which includes due-diligence obligations, citing concerns about the administrative burden that SMEs might face.
The undersigned organisations, welcome the European Commission’s proposal for a new EU regulation on deforestation-free products. It is now up to the European Parliament and Member States to preserve and improve the essential elements of the Commission’s proposal and deliver a strong and ambitious law.
Civil society organisations and representatives of Indigenous communities all over the world call on the EU to require businesses to respect land rights in anti-deforestation rules
Cameroonian activists rallied in front of the EU delegation in Yaoundé to demand the block to cease support for rubber linked to deforestation, and to call for an ambitious EU legislation on forest commodities
The fate of the proposals on (i) minimising the risk of deforestation and forest degradation associated with products placed on the EU market and (ii) sustainable corporate governance is now unclear, raising concerns among civil society.
The organisations call on the EU to ensure that its upcoming legislative measures are effective and fully uphold their rights as set out in international law, and in line with the EU’s own commitments.