EU’s deforestation footprint highlights need for EUDR

Trase has published its latest assessment of the EU's links to global deforestation through its imports of over 150 agricultural commodities. The analysis covers the EU bloc as a whole supplemented by 27 individual factsheets on the exposure of each member state.

Despite a reduction in its deforestation footprint, the analysis shows that the EU was exposed to 112,500 hectares (ha) of deforestation per year over the period 2021–2023 through its imports of agricultural commodities. The figure is slightly lower when excluding deforestation that takes place within the EU itself at 108,600 ha per year. Both are likely to be underestimates given challenges linking more processed products, especially wood and rubber derivatives, to deforestation.

The EU is most exposed to deforestation via imports of cocoa from Côte d’Ivoire (38,800 ha per year, accounting for 40.1% of the EU total), followed by soy from Brazil (13,600 ha, 14.1%), cattle products from Brazil (10,400 ha, 10.8%) and palm oil from Indonesia (7,300 ha, 7.6%).

Progress to reduce EU deforestation exposure

The EU’s deforestation exposure has fallen over time, with the total exposure for 2023 (the most recent year available) less than half of the value for 2014. The main reason is a major drop in deforestation exposure from palm oil, historically the most important contributor to the EU’s footprint, but now down 91% over the same period. This reflects much lower rates of deforestation for palm oil in Indonesia than a decade ago, and is also a result of a significant fall in EU palm oil import volumes in recent years tied to the phase-out of palm oil-derived biofuels.

There were also more modest declines in deforestation exposure from cocoa, coffee and soy, while the risk from cattle products remained persistent over the period. These trends reflect a complicated picture of progress to reduce deforestation in key producer countries, along with shifting patterns of demand and the uptake of responsible sourcing practices, spurred on by both voluntary efforts and incoming regulation. While there is much more to be done, it shows that European agricultural imports are becoming decoupled from forest loss.

Swift and effective implementation and enforcement of the EUDR can play a critical role in ensuring that these encouraging trends can be sustained, enhanced and extended to all of the commodities and places that link EU demand to deforestation. This is especially important in the face of emerging risks in key sourcing regions; for example, the end of the Amazon Soy Moratorium, a landmark sectoral agreement whose recent suspension could upend years of progress in curbing soy-driven deforestation in the Brazilian Amazon.

Exposure varies greatly between member states

The analysis shows significant differences in the level of exposure between European countries to deforestation and the sourcing regions and commodities that bring the greatest risks. Unsurprisingly, major importing countries face the highest levels of exposure, with the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium, Italy and Germany taking the top places. However, their risk profiles differ markedly as the Netherlands and Belgium are most exposed to deforestation from cocoa imports, Spain from soy and Italy from cattle products.

These risk variations could have important implications for deforestation-free sourcing, both under the EUDR and in wider sustainability efforts, given that individual commodity sectors and countries face different challenges and have differing levels of EUDR-readiness. Furthermore, the competent authorities responsible for enforcing the regulation in each member state are likely to have different priorities and information needs depending on their particular country’s risk profile.

Re-exports redistribute deforestation exposure to other countries

While the table above shows which countries are most likely to import products linked to deforestation into the European market, in reality, many of these products may be re-exported and ultimately consumed elsewhere within the EU or further afield.

Trase’s analysis uses trade modelling techniques to adjust for re-exports and finds that, for some countries, the picture changes substantially. While the Netherlands is by far the most exposed country from a ‘direct trade’ perspective (due to the importance of the port of Rotterdam, for example), it is actually Germany that is most exposed to deforestation when accounting for re-exports, with its footprint increasing particularly for cocoa and cattle products.

In other cases, an overall footprint can be quite similar from both a direct trade and re-export adjusted trade perspective, but the balance of commodities shifts. For example, Italy is a major importer of cattle products from Brazil into the EU, but much of this may be re-exported elsewhere. Meanwhile, Italy’s exposure from cocoa is significantly higher after adjusting for re-exports than when only looking at direct trade.

Several countries, especially landlocked ones such as Austria or Czechia, have almost no ‘direct’ exposure to deforestation, but have more significant and varied exposure once re-exports account for intra-EU trade.

As well as redistributing risk within the EU, re-export modelling also accounts for the role of the EU within the broader global economy. For example, the EU’s overall deforestation exposure from cocoa is lower after accounting for re-exports (41,700 ha compared to 45,600 ha), reflecting its role as an importer and processing hub of cocoa products that may be consumed elsewhere. In contrast, its exposure from industrial roundwood is much higher once re-exports are factored in (3,700 ha, compared to 820 ha), suggesting the EU may be importing timber associated with deforestation indirectly via intermediaries.

New EU27 deforestation factsheets available

For more detailed information on the deforestation exposure of individual member states, Trase has updated its set of EU27 factsheets, incorporating the latest commodity-driven deforestation data presented in this analysis.

Article reference: Titley, M. (2026). EU’s deforestation footprint highlights need for EUDR. Trase. https://doi.org/10.48650/KX0A-F122