The EUDR could reduce timber imports from high-risk deforestation countries (including Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brazil) by more than 25% by 2040 – and even peak at 38% if definitions are changed to include agricultural conversion (dubbed EUDR+). That is according to a new report, The European Union Deforestation Regulation: Implications for the Global Forest sector, which reveals that high-risk countries will struggle to find new markets for displaced timber unless they embrace mechanisms like EU Forest Law Enforcement Governance and Trade.

by ChangeNarrow5633

1 comment

  1. I am not sure if I like this considering two aspects:

    1- Such regulations are almost all the time highly difficult for small players to adapt whereas Nestle can deploy their army of lawyers with good relationships to policymakers and even have more control on the market.

    This regulation is especially incredibly difficult for small players since when this regulation is implemented, it will not only be about future or today but “**timber and wood products placed on the market to be proven deforestation-free since December 31, 2020**.” Even Norwegian Environment Agency finds it very difficult by saying in their report: “*Full implementation of the regulation will not only add additional compliance costs for Norwegian forestry companies, it will also require detailed geolocation data for harvested wood and additional verification processes before export*”.

    Also, I would like to remind that when this legislation was postponed companies like Nestle and Ferrero was opposing **NOT** the legislation but it being delayed. If a company like Nestle is angry over a delay of legislation, do you really believe this is not beneficial to them?

    2- While US commits to a trade war with EU, this regulation will cause US producers to prosper whereas EU’s friendly allies will suffer and lose market power.

Comments are closed.