Forests around the world are in danger. Many institutions for forest governance are extremely weak, and progress is slow. On February 1st, SPUI25 – UvA’s cultural-academic platform – organised a symposium to discuss the EU’s new proposal to combat deforestation. European politicians, WWF scientists, and private sector advisors alike reached similar conclusions: the proposal is both path-breaking and unprecedented. Yet, it still doesn’t go far enough.
Timber, palm oil, soy, coffee, cocoa, beef; if these six products are derived from deforested land, businesses won’t be allowed to sell them anymore in the EU, according to the new proposal. This radical set of laws puts the EU’s money where its mouth is and aims to strictly regulate the demand-side of the problem.
Delara Burkhardt – MEP for the Social Democratic Party of Germany (SDP) – applauded the move, and how it tackles previous lacklustre attempts to fix the problem: “Both the industry and the European Commission were using labelling to shovel responsibility to the consumer. Certifications have auxiliary functions, but are not the same as companies’ legal obligations to the EU.” She referred to labels like FSC (Forest Stewardship Council), that promote sustainable forestry. Although a step in the good direction, Burkhardt emphasised how the problem was turned into one depending on the consumer instead of the producer. The new laws would reverse this, and put the responsibility back into the hands of the producers.
What makes the proposal even more ambitious is its need for increased transparency in the supply chain of these products. Banning soy from deforested land is impossible unless it’s clear where, exactly, the soy came from. Pablo Pacheco – WWF’s Global Forests Lead Scientist – was optimistic about this: “The EU’s proposed commitments have already triggered initiatives on traceability and risk mapping. All tools leverage on information technology.” Although deforestation is a global problem, Pacheco stressed that just the EU’s contribution could make a big difference, if only for the new technologies that would be developed and implemented.
However, the laws were also criticized by every member of the panel. Burkhardt argued that the proposal was not complete if products like rubber and maize were not included. Rob Busink (Senior Policy Advisor at Dutch Ministry of Agriculture) agreed that the scope should be wider as well to protect ecosystems other than forests. Otherwise, a conversion will take place and equally valuable ecosystems would be destroyed instead. Ingrid Hontis (environmental advisor at Fedustria, representing Belgian woodworking companies) also feared that suppliers would change to other non-EU countries with fewer efforts if the laws are too strict. Nonetheless, everyone seemingly agreed that it was a landmark regulation, bound to awake both consumers and producers around the world. Who knows, perhaps history was written in our university.
The supply-side of the new legislation will be discussed in a second symposium organized by SPUI25 (date TBA). Click here to watch the livestream of the first event.