Commodity-driven deforestation was the dominant driver associated with 27 percent of gross global tree cover loss between 2001 and 2015, according to Global Forest Watch. This first led to a wave of corporate promises to eliminate deforestation from supply chains.
For decades, voluntary corporate pledges were the primary tools to preserve our forests. We’re entering a new era in the fight against deforestation. Today, the world is pivoting toward mandatory demand-side regulations - laws that require importers to prove that agricultural goods are not linked to deforestation. But as this transition unfolds, two voices - Duncan Brack, a forest governance expert, and Fernando Sampaio, a leader in Brazil’s livestock sector - say that good intentions are not enough to change the status quo.
If we want a sustainable and fair global trade system, measures from consuming countries must evolve towards more inclusive frameworks that recognize and reward progress on the other side of the chain.
The evolution of measures
The roots of demand-side action go back over 20 years. In 2003, the EU launched the FLEGTinitiative, a landmark program built on partnerships with timber-exporting countries to combat illegal logging. It laid the groundwork for subsequent laws like the EU Timber Regulation (2010), which banned illegally sourced wood.
The focus has now expanded, says Duncan Brack. By the 2010s, it became clear that the most significant driver of deforestation wasn’t illegal logging but agricultural expansion, adds Duncan. This shifted global attention toward "forest-risk commodities" such as palm oil, soy, and beef. In response, a wave of voluntary corporate commitments emerged, aiming to make supply chains deforestation-free.
An increase of national schemes in producing countries andpressure on the EU led to the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) in 2023 which requires seven commodities, including palm oil, soy and beef be both deforestation-free and legally produced to enter the EU market adds Duncan.
What’s driving the shift?
Both Brack and Sampaio agree: the future of demand-side measures must be multilateral, science-based, and inclusive.
1. Fragmentation to consistency
Brack warns of a growing patchwork of rules across markets. Sampaio echoes this concern:
“If each country defines sustainability differently, trade becomes distorted and costly.”
According to Sampaio, one solution could be to create a global standard for environmental equivalence, similar to how sanitary standards are recognized under WTOagreements. This would allow countries to demonstrate sustainability through their own frameworks—while ensuring consistency across markets.
2. Recognize and Integrate Producer Country Systems
Brack points to the success of FLEGT partnerships in improving governance and transparency in forest-rich countries. Sampaio suggests going further by embedding climate and environmental metrics—like Brazil’s carbon footprint protocols—into trade agreements.
3. Build Inclusive Transition Models
A major concern for Sampaio is that demand-side rules, as currently structured, disadvantage smallholders.
“To propose the transformation of unilateral exclusive measures into multilateral and inclusive ones, explicitly incorporating into the debates the need to ensure a fair transition for rural producers in the new trade rules, providing for adaptation periods, technical and financial support, especially for small and medium-sized producers.“ adds Sampaio
Finally, Sampaio calls for the creation of an international working group to harmonize agricultural sustainability metrics, with participation from FAO, IPCC, and academia in tropical countries. Climate and trade deals, he says, should reward countries that reduce emissions and protect forests, rather than penalize those still transitioning.
5. Global South Leadership
Producer countries like Brazil and Indonesia are advancing national regulations and sustainable land-use strategies like the Forest Code in Brazil showing that leadership doesn’t only come from consumer markets.
The bigger picture: why this matters
Laws like EUDR will help to determine the resilience of global food systems. —they’ll also determine the resilience of global food systems. In a warming world, deforestation-free trade is about more than ethics. It’s about ensuring long-term food security. Brack adds:
“It would also be helpful for supporters of demand-side measures such as the EUDR to be able to demonstrate clearly how measures to combat deforestation are necessary not just to achieve climate and nature goals but to ensure secure and resilient supply chains for the foodstuffs that consumer countries import and depend upon.“
The shift towards new regulation is a step in the right direction, but it requires deep commitment from all sides, including producers, jurisdictional elements and policymakers. There’s an opportunity to make the right call and enable seismic change, while ensuring countries and workers are supported along the way.
Accordingly, recent calls from some members of the European Parliament and EU member-state ministers for a further delay and watering down of the EUDR would undermine the chance of these outcomes - which is why they have been opposed by many leading companies. It is to be hoped that the European Commission will resist them.