The European Parliament will enact a new law intended to ban products from deforested areas from its imports, according to our partner
The Conversation
.
But much of the deforestation that is happening in Brazil, particularly in the Amazon, is already illegal, so products made from it are already banned.
This analysis was conducted by
François-Michel Le Tourneau
, geographer and CNRS research director at the University of Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.
In December 2022, the European Parliament agreed to enact new legislation intended to ban from its imports products that come from deforested areas.
This is a major step forward on the issue of 'imported deforestation', ie deforestation that exists as a result of demand from distant markets, in particular the EU.
We can only welcome a text whose ambition is to highlight the role of markets in the dynamics that contribute to climate change, as well as to hold producers responsible who behave badly, threatened with fines if they are faulted.
But, if we apply the framework that has just been approved to the question of deforestation in Brazil, can we expect rapid or significant changes?
The question of control: not so simple
The European Parliament insists on the fact that the products will be controlled according to a traceability which will be linked to a database drawn from satellite imagery proposed by Airbus and making it possible to identify the deforested plots.
There is absolutely no doubt about the great precision of the geographic data that will be produced.
But the association of such and such a carcass of meat or such and such a cargo of soybeans with prohibited parcels is likely to be more delicate.
It should not be forgotten that much of the deforestation that occurs in Brazil, particularly in the Amazon, is already illegal, so the products that come from it are already prohibited...
If they are put on the market, it is by concealing themselves, in particular by making believe that they come from regions where they would be legal, by means of false certificates or various techniques, such as the redemption in cash of herds which are surreptitiously inserted just before their slaughter into the livestock of authorized farms.
Will the European Union be stronger than the Brazilian authorities, knowing that, unlike the latter, it will not have access to the ground to carry out checks?
One wonders if there is not a bit of technological illusion in this aspect of the legislation.
Which forests?
What deforestation?
As many NGOs have pointed out, the focus on forests means that the space mainly concerned at the moment, in Brazil, concerns the Amazon biome.
However, if it is attacked by the growth of agricultural space, in particular because of the development of pastures for cattle breeding, this space is not (and by far) the heart of the Brazilian agricultural system.
This beats in the savannahs of the center of the country (the cerrado), which it has been intensely transforming for four decades, leading to massive conversions of natural vegetation to agricultural plots.
The European Parliament has indicated that it intends to add the cerrado quickly in the zones prohibited to deforestation, which could transform the ban on deforestation into a ban on the conversion of vegetation, with very wide repercussions, including in Europe.
If adopted (or when adopted), this measure is likely to have more impact in Brazil than the currently accepted terms.
It will certainly also lead to more reactions…
A small share under embargo
The question of the reference date for plot monitoring is another fundamental point.
For the moment, with regard to forests, the end of 2019 has been chosen.
Therefore, all plots deforested before this date are not prohibited.
Knowing that the deforestation of the last three years has been roughly 35,500 km2 (INPE figures rounded), out of approximately 800,000 km2 deforested in the Amazon biome in Brazil, it is therefore 4.3% of the Amazonian agricultural space which would be prohibited from export to the EU at present.
If we consider a trajectory of 10,000 km2 of deforestation per year over the next decade (we obviously hope that it will be much less!), we would reach around 16% by 3032 – which means that 84% of the areas deforested in the Amazon could still export their production to the EU.
The same reasoning applies to the cerrado, of course, and we will see if the date that will be retained in this case will be the same or not.
In both cases, it will be a small proportion of the Brazilian agricultural area which will, in fact, be under embargo.
It has already been pointed out above that part of the deforestation that took place in the Amazon before 2020 is considered illegal by the Brazilian government, which is itself in the process of setting up (with difficulty) an environmental monitoring program (the environmental cadastre rural or CAR) to map these areas and get landowners to reforest them.
Putting in the means to help Brazil move forward much more quickly on this system would perhaps have more short-term effects than considering control from Europe, by opening the way not only to a stabilization of deforestation, but to a recovery of part of the lost areas.
To two export markets?
The most serious risk that European legislation runs is to be circumvented by the dissociation, on the part of Brazilian exporters, of their products into two markets: an ecologically correct production, intended for Europe (probably sold at a higher price) , and a production that pays little attention to environmental conditions, intended for other markets, in particular the Chinese market.
Faced with this, the proponents of the European text consider that the fact that Europe is overall the world's leading market limits this risk.
However, seen from Brazil, one can question this evaluation.
Europe imports only 14% of Brazilian soybeans and 8.8% of Brazilian beef (COMEXSTAT data) – as shown in the graph above – the two productions which are the major vectors of deforestation ( in the Amazon or in other regions of Brazil).
China is responsible for 70% and 49% of the same, and Asia in general for 80.6 and 62%.
It is only in the area of soybean meals that the EU's share is more significant and that it is on a par with China (44.7% against 43%), but meals and similar do not represent only 14.4% of the combined value of exports of the three products.
To put it another way, Brazil exports ten times more soybeans to Asia than meals to the European Union... which is therefore clearly not, for Brazilian exporters, a market as major as we see it. imagine.
Moreover, while a significant part of the cake is exported from the state of Mato Grosso (which is ecologically located in the cerrado and in the Amazon), more than half comes from southern Brazil (States of Paraná, Rio Grande do Sul and Paraná), which are not areas of deforestation.
Brazil can therefore very easily supply the EU with products that meet its criteria, coming from the south of the country, while supplying what it produces in the Amazon to China or other countries that do not have the same criteria. ecological.
Based on these figures, one can wonder about the possibility that European legislation, as dissuasive as it is in view of the sanctions envisaged, could really change the situation in the Amazon or in Brazil in general, especially since if we have spoken here of the possibility of finding alternative international markets, there is also the possibility of concentrating production with low ecological standards for the internal market (particularly meat) and of reserving products with higher standards (and quality) for export.
A matter of method
The European Union considers that its legislation will serve as an example and that it will gradually be taken up in other countries.
But we can question this aspect according to the underlying philosophy.
Indeed, the EU considers that it can define in place of the States what they should or should not do with their natural space, including by observing it from a distance to carry out its controls.
Given how fussy it is on matters of its own sovereignty, it is not very likely that China will follow suit on this path.
The risk is therefore that we, European consumers, can pride ourselves on consuming while being ecologically correct without changing much in the global situation since the most important markets for the products that motivate deforestation are outside the EU (all at least as far as Brazil is concerned).
Two blind spots
Let us repeat, the fight against deforestation is legitimate and necessary and the empowerment of European citizens is welcome.
Two blind spots nevertheless seem to be worth highlighting here.
The first is that it would be much more convincing for the rest of the world to see Europe proposing a new social or cultural model based on the reduction of consumption (the now unavoidable sobriety) rather than setting conditions for constant consumption greater by its citizens of products which have a strong impact on the environment (meat in particular).
The second is that, in the current economic and ecological system, plots of natural vegetation do not bring in anything, whereas once converted into agricultural areas they produce income for their owners (while having a staggering environmental cost paid by all, sure).
OUR “DEFORESTATION” FILE
Farmers in Brazil don't deforest out of hatred for trees, but because it makes economic sense.
Reversing this through ambitious payment for environmental services policies would undoubtedly be the most effective way to drastically limit deforestation.
Access to this content has been blocked to respect your choice of consent
By clicking on "
I ACCEPT
", you accept the deposit of cookies by external services and will thus have access to the content of our partners
I ACCEPT
Planet
Deforestation: 2021 will be decisive for the protection (and restoration) of global forest cover
Planet
Silviculture: Why Rainforest Management Requires “Less Cut and Let Go”
This article is produced by The Conversation and hosted by 20 Minutes.
Environment
Planet
The Conversation
Brazil
Wood
Video
Deforestation
European Union (EU)