Deforestation in the Amazon: what is France’s share?

Each year, the forest fires in the Brazilian Amazon are a reminder that the protection of tropical forests remains insufficient to stem the changes in land use contributing to the climate change and the reduction of biodiversity.

In this context, imports of soy in Europe are since a long time singled out and the European Union has recently proposed a draft regulation against the ” deforestation imported”.

While France has decided to make it a priority of its EU presidency, which started in January 2022, what exactly do we know about role of our country in deforestation in the Amazon?

What is imported deforestation?

Every year in Brazil, agricultural activity – mainly extensive cattle breeding and the cultivation of soya – is gaining ground on the forests of Amazonia and on the savannahs of its biome neighbour, the Cerrado.

This expansion is driven by growing demand meat (beef, pork, poultry) and derived products (eggs, dairy products) worldwide. Brazil is the world’s largest exporter of beef and soybeans, the latter being mainly intended for animal feed.

The imported deforestation in question corresponds to the quantity of natural vegetation (forests or savannas) destroyed, directly or indirectly, in order to produce in the exporting country a good demanded by the importing country.

Almost all supply chains of materials raw or processed products from tropical countries are concerned (wood, palm oil, cocoaetc.) but, in the case of France, soya is the one whose“forest footprint” is the biggest.

Almost 60% of soybeans that we import comes from Brazil. By contrast, the share of beef imports from Brazil is much lower (1%), but there are serious concerns about the possibility of them increasing significantly under the EU/Mercosur free trade agreement. France remains, for the moment, opposed to its signature.

Pointing out responsibilities: the challenge of traceability

Contrary to what some reports (such as this one presented on France 5) in the field suggest, demonstrating precisely the link between a quantity of imported soybeans or beef and the destruction of forests is much more complex than pointing out a handful of actors responsible for deforestation in connection with French companies.

It is indeed necessary to consider all the import flows involved.

Since 2015, the Trase project seeks to identify the flows of soybeans and beef exported by each municipality in Brazil and to make the link with the possible presence of deforestation. This makes it possible to estimate the risk that the imported products are responsible. We are talking about “risks” here, because in fact, the production can just as well come from a farm that has not practiced deforestation for decades as from a recently cleared plot…

Thus, as long as the direct tracing of beef or soybeans from the plot where they were produced is not possible through a reliable system and protected from fraud, it will be difficult to pinpoint responsibilities with certainty. .

Soy vector of deforestation? Not that easy…

The mechanisms of deforestation in Brazil are complex even if the analysis of the satellite images makes it possible to better and better locate the cleared plots and to specify land use which is made following deforestation.

In the table below, soy is not necessarily a vector of direct deforestation, since agroindustrialists have signed a ” moratorium on soybeans” which aims to prohibit production on plots cleared after 2008.

Valid for the Amazon, this rule nevertheless leaves the field open in the Cerrado, where most of the production takes place and where the pressure on natural environments is the strongest. We can also point out that a third of Brazil’s soybean production takes place in the south of the country, far from the deforestation fronts. In addition, in the Amazon, farmers can clear new land for other crops (cotton, But) and reserve formerly deforested land for soybeans.

But if Brazilian soy is not always associated with recent deforestation, on the contrary, cattle breeding is (very) mainly responsible for deforestation in the Amazon. However, its production supplies very little to the French market.

Can we change the situation by sanctioning imported deforestation?

The National Strategy to Combat Imported Deforestation (SNDI), launched by the French government in 2018, aims to eliminate the “accomplice” participation (intentional or not) of imports in deforestation by 2030.

To this end, the government has proposed a whole series of measures aimed at financing sustainable forest management projects, influencing European trade agreements to include environmental requirements and, finally, raising awareness among private players.

Imports of Brazilian meat into France being low, the potential lever lies in those of soya. However, the decreasing weight of Europe in Brazilian soybean exports and its limited role in deforestation means that even a possible boycott would probably not have much effect for the Amazon: France barely weighs 2% of Brazilian soybean exports.

This type of solution could even lead Brazil to have it both ways: unsustainable soybeans produced in the Amazon could go either to China (which accounts for 60% of its soybean exports), or stay in the country, while sustainable and certified “zero deforestation” production would go to Europe (16.7% of exports).

Europeans facing their contradictions

The solution to import only sustainable soy, 100% traceable and guaranteed without deforestation (with a certificate RTRS or Proterra type) is often put forward.

But, in addition to the localization issues mentioned above, this solution implies that there are buyers ready to pay more than conventional production. However, there is already soy certified “without deforestation”, but its share in European imports was only 25% in 2019 (compared to 19% in 2018), reflecting weak demand from European consumers.

The situations certainly differ from one country to another: Norway imported 100% of sustainable soya (but barely 244,000 tonnes in total) in 2019, France 16% (out of a total of 3.8 million tonnes ) and Spain 1% (out of a total of 4.1 million tonnes).

This state of affairs indicates one thing: stopping deforestation has a price and overall European consumers do not seem ready to pay it, as there is a strong preference for very cheap products (we obviously see the same phenomenon with regard to textiles or electronics, produced in low-cost countries, with severe social and environmental consequences, and yet purchased in mass in Europe).

However, it would be unfair to attribute the fault only to the “consumer”: the study of supply chains shows that it is necessary to mobilize a large number of actors – including farmers, industrialists, traders, breeders and large retailers – to bring about change.

Fighting against imported deforestation is nevertheless important, because it is about the ecological exemplarity of European countries.

However, rather than controlling deforestation from a distance, the solution certainly lies much more in a policy that Brazil itself would put in place, what he did successfully between 2004 and 2014. Many NGOs have denounced the current relaxation, the country having experienced in 2021, its highest rate of deforestation for fifteen years.

An alternative to banning imported deforestation would therefore be to collaborate with the Brazilian government and their local professional organizations in order to define a common conservation objective and share the costs associated with the change in the production model.

Vast program, much more complex to implement than a boycott!