Deforestation in Bahia, Brazil
EU deforestation-free supply chain law advances, but misleadingly classifies just 0.07% of imports as ‘high-risk’
14 May 2025
An EU committee has reportedly finalised the list of countries that will be classified low, standard or high-risk under the bloc’s deforestation-free supply chain law. While the full list of countries has yet to be released, Euractiv reported that only four countries will be classified high-risk of deforestation or illegality: those under UN and EU sanctions. Other reports suggest that key deforestation countries including Brazil and Indonesia will instead be considered only standard-risk.
This ‘country benchmarking’ will be used to guide the authorities enforcing the law, with higher risk countries subject to more checks and greater scrutiny by companies. A country’s risk status is intended to signal how likely it is that its timber, palm oil, soy, leather or other relevant commodities are linked to deforestation or illegality.
“This decision makes no sense,” said Sam Lawson, Earthsight’s Director. “The countries identified as high-risk include none of those best known for suffering from deforestation to supply EU markets and cited by the EU as justifying the law’s existence. They represent just 0.07 per cent of the wood, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, rubber and cattle products coming into Europe.1 The law was created to address risks in EU imports – classifying only 0.07 per cent of imports as high-risk undermines its very purpose.”
Making Brazil and Indonesia – two of the largest exporters of commodities linked to tropical deforestation – standard-risk ignores their outsized contribution to global deforestation as well as the many reports of human rights abuses, land grabbing and illegality linked to the production of commodities for EU consumption.
While the EU Commission has not yet released the methodology it used to come up with this list, it is clear that this process was heavily politicised, with intense lobbying by political and industry interests within the EU and in producer countries.
These country ratings send a misleading signal, but they do not remove a company’s legal responsibility. Whether sourcing from a country with a low, standard or high-risk, companies still need to make sure the products they import and sell are free from deforestation or illegality. The onus is still on companies to look past this flawed and politicised benchmarking exercise and examine the real risks in their supply chains.
The EU law has already been delayed by a year after backlash from the industries affected. A failure to conclude the benchmarking in time could have delayed it further. “The country benchmarking now looks set to be completed ahead of its 30 June deadline,” said Mr Lawson. “So that at least is good news. The forests being destroyed by European consumption of these commodities cannot afford another delay.”
ENDS
Notes to editors
Earthsight was one of 40 civil society organisations that published an open letter to the EU Commission in January calling on the Commission to ensure that the country benchmarking under the EU Deforestation Law objectively reflects real human rights and environmental risks.
Earthsight’s in-depth investigations into deforestation and human rights abuses linked to European supply chains, spanning a range of commodities and countries including Brazil and Indonesia, helped inform the development of the EU’s new law and were cited at a European Parliamentary debate during its development.
For media enquiries, contact:
Sam Lawson, Director
Fyfe Strachan, Policy & Communications Lead
1 Based on Eurostat import data for December 2024
