At the 2021 UN Climate Conference in Glasgow, Scotland, 145 nations made a pledge to halt and reverse deforestation and land degradation by 2030. Almost three years later, the call for transformative action is ringing hollow.
Globally, 6.37 million hectares of forest were lost last year, and targets to reduce deforestation were missed in almost all tropical regions, according to the Forest Declaration Assessment. Even more forest — 62.6 million hectares — became degraded (meaning an area fell to a lower ecological integrity class) in 2022. Overall, the world is 45 percent off its deforestation targets, and, in a frustrating twist, forest-loss levels have risen above a 2018-2020 baseline since the pledge.
The core driver of deforestation is commodity production. Over the past two decades, 57 percent of permanent forest loss has been caused by the production of agricultural commodities, such as beef, soy and palm oil, with about 20 to 25 percent of that production being exported. Demand for these products has only increased. The EU and China were responsible for 40 percent of all deforestation embodied in the direct trade of agricultural commodities from 2020 to 2022.
Illustration: Mountain People
Meanwhile, mining and the production of viscose, a fabric made out of cellulose, are emerging threats. While there are sustainable intentions behind the rise in certain commodities — viscose has been marketed as eco-friendly, and the appetite for metals and rare earths is being partly driven by the energy transition — it is a reminder that consumption, green or not, would have impacts on carbon sinks and natural ecosystems. As I wrote last year, as much as 40 percent of viscose comes from sources likely to be linked to deforestation, but as my colleague David Fickling rightly points out, in Indonesia, where there has been a lot of focus on the threat of nickel mining, palm oil remains the biggest danger by far.
Efforts to eliminate deforestation from supply chains have largely been voluntary corporate commitments. While these pledges have steered the conversation and helped the development of traceable, it is clear that they are not enough to deliver results at a sufficient pace.
That is why policy experts and forest advocates alike have been pushing for demand-side regulation — essentially a ban on the import of deforestation-linked goods — in consumer countries for years.
Although great strides have been made toward this, nations now seem to be dragging their feet. Considering this latest report, it looks particularly egregious. Take, for example, the EU’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which covers seven commodities: cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya, and wood and their derivatives (glycerol, soybeans, leather etc.) Due to come into force on Dec. 30 for medium and large operators and traders, the new rules would require companies trading in those products to ensure the goods do not result from recent deforestation (including legal clearing), degradation, or breaches of local environmental and social laws.
Yet, in a shock twist at the start of this month, the European Commission adopted a proposal to delay the implementation of the EUDR for another 12 months, a week after saying it had no plans to do so. The postponement needs to be approved by the European Parliament to become official. Meanwhile, supermarkets have taken to urging the UK to press ahead with its own long-promised anti-deforestation law, saying holdups are causing market uncertainty and undermining retailers’ own efforts.
There are reasonable concerns about the effects of the regulation on smallholder farmers in forest nations who might be excluded from the global market if they lack the resources to comply. Any delay must be used productively to help build capacity in these areas and support national traceability systems, so that when rules are implemented, smallholders can reap the benefits. There is a risk that the deferral would instead be used to dilute the EUDR or ditch it altogether. That would be a mistake.
Import regulation would not solve everything. A study published in the journal Nature earlier this year found that the main economic driver for deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon is the domestic market, which is responsible for almost triple the deforestation generated by international demand. However, it would influence regulation and practices in producer countries, which should have positive knock-on effects for forest supply chains around the world, which is almost triple that of international demand.
Once primary forest is gone, it is gone forever, taking with it precious carbon stores and biodiversity havens. There is no time to waste in making good on what have so far been empty words.
Lara Williams is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering climate change. This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump’s second administration has gotten off to a fast start with a blizzard of initiatives focused on domestic commitments made during his campaign. His tariff-based approach to re-ordering global trade in a manner more favorable to the United States appears to be in its infancy, but the significant scale and scope are undeniable. That said, while China looms largest on the list of national security challenges, to date we have heard little from the administration, bar the 10 percent tariffs directed at China, on specific priorities vis-a-vis China. The Congressional hearings for President Trump’s cabinet have, so far,
The US Department of State has removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” in its updated Taiwan-US relations fact sheet, which instead iterates that “we expect cross-strait differences to be resolved by peaceful means, free from coercion, in a manner acceptable to the people on both sides of the Strait.” This shows a tougher stance rejecting China’s false claims of sovereignty over Taiwan. Since switching formal diplomatic recognition from the Republic of China to the People’s Republic of China in 1979, the US government has continually indicated that it “does not support Taiwan independence.” The phrase was removed in 2022
US President Donald Trump, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth have each given their thoughts on Russia’s war with Ukraine. There are a few proponents of US skepticism in Taiwan taking advantage of developments to write articles claiming that the US would arbitrarily abandon Ukraine. The reality is that when one understands Trump’s negotiating habits, one sees that he brings up all variables of a situation prior to discussion, using broad negotiations to take charge. As for his ultimate goals and the aces up his sleeve, he wants to keep things vague for
RSS