9.1 Introduction
Forests cover about 30 per cent of the global land area and host about 80 per cent of its biodiversity.Footnote 1 They provide important ecosystem services, including subsistence and income to 25 per cent of the world’s population, clean air, water flow regulation, carbon sequestration, habitats for species,Footnote 2 and disease regulation and control.Footnote 3
However, forests are also seriously under threat due to deforestation and forest degradation.Footnote 4 The Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO) estimates that 420 million hectares of forests (10 per cent of the remaining global forests), corresponding to an area larger than the European Union (EU), were lost between 1990 and 2020.Footnote 5 The FAO reports also noted increasing disturbances in relation to forest ecosystem health and observed that 10 per cent of forests are considered to be severely fragmented.Footnote 6
The causes behind such loss and fragmentation are traced back to the expansion of land used for agriculture (about 80 per cent of global deforestation), but also – to a lesser extent – urban expansion, infrastructure development, and mining, with differences in relation to the location, and between regions and within continents.Footnote 7 Additionally, the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are not limited to the forestry sector itself, as there are also matters of weak land tenure regime, weak government and legal enforcement and protection of Indigenous rights and broader human rights, climate change, democracy and political freedoms, consumption levels of the commodities, dependence on feed imports, and agricultural and other policies.Footnote 8
In terms of the One Health framework, this loss comes with significant consequences for people, wildlife, and the environment, such as increased opportunities for contact between people and wildlife and related disease emergence and spread, human diseases linked to environmental degradation, loss of habitats, increase of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions, and other effects.Footnote 9
To mitigate this loss, legislation can assist in three key ways. First, legislation can contribute to ecosystem and species protection,Footnote 10 as well as restoration.Footnote 11 Second, legislation can regulate the interface between nature and other policy fields (agriculture and food production, climate, and energy).Footnote 12 Third, legislation can regulate the value chains and supply chains. The term ‘supply chain’ has been defined as ‘a dynamic process that includes the continuous flow of materials, funds, and information across multiple functional areas within and between chain members’.Footnote 13 In simpler terms, supply chains refer to the sequence of linked processes and stages involved in product production, movement, distribution, and sale.Footnote 14 As such, ‘greening’ supply chains of products and materials represents a way in which nature loss and degradation can be prevented.
In recent years, the EU has initiated action on this third pathway and adopted the ‘Deforestation-free Products Regulation’ (The Regulation).Footnote 15 The Regulation contains rules on the placing and making available on the Union market and the export of certain products that contain, have been fed, or have been made with certain commodities (cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya, and wood),Footnote 16 thus ‘targeting’ the EU consumption of these products, which accounts for a non-negligible amount of the global share of deforestation and forest degradation.Footnote 17 Indeed, the Regulation aims to minimise the contribution of the EU to deforestation and forest degradation that might accompany these products if there is a lack of a proper due diligence system in place. A second connected aim of the Regulation is to reduce the EU’s contribution to GHG emissions and biodiversity loss.Footnote 18
If this is an environmental instrument that touches on the supply chain of certain products with clear due diligence obligations in relation to these products, what does the Regulation have to do with health and the One Health approach? What are some elements of interest from a One Health point of view?
In the quest to find answers to the above questions, this chapter is structured as follows.
In Section 9.2, the systemic importance of forests and the interlinkages between forests and health will be illustrated. Section 9.3 will consider the relevance of environmental protection for disease prevention in the context of the One Health Approach. These two sections combined will provide the basis for Section 9.4, where the (hidden) health dimension of the Regulation and the Regulation itself will be explored. Section 9.5 will present a discussion on the themes covered and conclusions.
9.2 Forests and Health
Land use and land use change emissions (including deforestation) are among the biggest drivers of climate change, exerting a sizeable impact as the second most significant cause of climate change after fossil fuels.Footnote 19 In fact, forest harvesting and conversion to agricultural land release a substantial part of the carbon stored in biomass and soil.Footnote 20 In addition, forests act as carbon sinks and deforestation and forest degradation reduce the carbon-absorbing capacity of forests.Footnote 21 The contribution of deforestation and forest degradation to climate change is so substantial that estimates indicate that forest and natural ecosystem protection could potentially contribute to 16–30 per cent of climate change mitigation needs,Footnote 22 to meet the targets of the Paris Agreement.Footnote 23
Deforestation and forest degradation also cause loss of species, habitat loss, habitat fragmentation, and a consequent decreased capability of species to adapt to climate change and other pressures and stressors.Footnote 24 Population decline and/or local extinction of such species and a different biodiversity composition in these spaces may also have a domino effect on other species due to, e.g. food-web interactions and other ecosystem processes, with further potential future effects.Footnote 25
Finally, wider environmental degradation is often brought about by deforestation forest degradation, and land use change, namely water quality issues (e.g. linked to decreased soil filtration with possible effects on access to clean drinking water),Footnote 26 soil quality (e.g. erosion, which also may lead to an impacted capacity of rivers and dams and increased runoff),Footnote 27 and air quality (this might be especially true where deforestation is conducted through slash and burn techniques or where we have spontaneous fires).Footnote 28
The environmental issues connected to deforestation and forest degradation discussed above are notably woven together and, both singularly and cumulatively, have implications for animal and human health.
First, climate change and biodiversity loss have, on their own, been linked to a possible increase in disease emergence and spread.Footnote 29 Along with a more ‘obvious’ variation in temperature and climate, climate change causes the environmental conditions of habitats to change. A spatial rearrangement or shifting of habitats and species might also occur, depending on the internal species traits and external drivers of change: this would be, essentially, a ‘relocation’ of species out of certain areas and into other areas, in line with the shifting of habitats.Footnote 30 For example, climate change has already been linked to a change in the distribution of tick-borne pathogens.Footnote 31 This ‘movement’ could allow for changes in species composition and represent a suitable opportunity for new contact between species and between species and pathogens, potentially facilitating a disease spillover event (where disease spreads from non-human species to humans).Footnote 32 Additionally, climate change has been associated with increased health events due to higher temperatures.Footnote 33
As for the importance of biodiversity for health,Footnote 34 it has been hypothesised, for example, that a reduction of animal populations and biodiversity might result in the loss of the ‘dilution effect’ or ‘wasted transmission’ between (non-specific) hosts and (zoonotic) pathogen spread.Footnote 35 This hypothesis suggests that biodiverse communities limit the spread of diseases through several mechanisms,Footnote 36 essentially ‘diverting’ free-living parasites from suitable hosts (i.e. completely unsuitable hosts: decoy effect; or low competency hosts: alternative hosts).Footnote 37 Biodiversity is also an interesting ‘tool’ for the production of medicines,Footnote 38 meaning that biodiversity loss might be detrimental to their research and development, impairing the finding of disease cures or the use of better alternative ingredients for pharmaceuticals.Footnote 39
Second, there may be a causal link between deforestation and forest degradation, contact with, and trade of wildlife and virus emergence and spread.Footnote 40 This may be due to increased contact between humans and wildlife, causing viruses to cross barriers between species and may, eventually, lead to increased chances of a spillover event of a pathogen (with epidemic or pandemic potential) in cases of deforestation and forest degradation.Footnote 41 Regarding the degree of risks related to disease spread, habitat fragmentation is particularly problematic (besides the potential biodiversity loss associated with it) because the length of the perimeter of the forest edge where humans and livestock may more likely come into contact with wildlife increases.Footnote 42 Deforestation may also involve the creation of roads with potential consequences for disease emergence and transmission, such as via increased access and/or increased hunting behaviour.Footnote 43
Naturally, these aspects are not only relevant to human health. The route or direction of the transmission of the disease might not be a ‘one-way street’ as certain diseases can also be transmitted to (wild) animals by humans, thus adding another problematic dimension to the issue at hand: potential added biodiversity (and economic) loss among infected (domesticated or wild) animal populations.Footnote 44
Finally, looking beyond infectious diseases, there may be health consequences due to increased heat (for both humans and animals) and mental health issues associated with deforestation,Footnote 45 but also the potential for other diseases linked to environmental degradation, such as the already mentioned air quality, soil quality, and water quality issues.Footnote 46
Given the above, tackling deforestation and forest degradation and broader forest protection measures could be considered as having broader health implications and representing a strategy for disease prevention, and of benefit to human and animal health, and not just climate and biodiversity protection measures.
9.3 The Relevance of Environmental Protection for Disease Prevention in the One Health Approach
The One Health approach is an approach based on collaboration, multidisciplinarity, and multisectorality, founded on the notion that human health, animal, and environmental health are interdependent.Footnote 47 The approach should contribute to and inform the design and implementation of programmes, policies, legislation, and research and support the collaboration and communication between sectors and disciplines. The ultimate goal is to achieve better public health outcomes.Footnote 48 If one were to schematically represent One Health, the approach would appear as having different nexuses, which could be considered singularly (the human–animal nexus, the human–environment nexus, and the animal–environment nexus) or together (the human–animal–environment nexus).Footnote 49 Because the approach involves so many interfaces and elements, it can be an excellent tool in the pursuit of more effective measures and actions for problems that involve a systems approach.
Given that each of these nexuses forms part of the One Health approach, strategies tackling even one of its elements could be regarded as a factual operationalisation of the approach, perhaps even when the connection is not explicitly considered. Indeed, a One Health approach also implies the need to reduce human pressure on the environment, which could be seen as a medical intervention in itself, and calls for better integration of environmental and wildlife issues to address challenges related to disease spillover.Footnote 50
In particular, given that the origins and roots of diseases can often be found in ecological systems and their management, integrating ecological approaches along with the more ‘traditional’ biomedical approaches would make for a comprehensive and balanced disease prevention strategy.Footnote 51 In this sense, ecological countermeasures (strategic conservation and restoration of nature and, hence, the mitigation of risks for at-risk humans) can prevent spillovers and protect human and animal health, with the added benefit of addressing climate change and biodiversity loss.Footnote 52 In the optic of disease prevention in relation to ecological approaches, the focus would be on maintaining habitat integrity, heterogeneity, and connectivity to prevent new interfaces enabling disease emergence and spread.Footnote 53 From a legal standpoint, this would translate into establishing measures with protective, conservation, and restoration goals, which, if sufficiently ambitious and well implemented, could have positive One Health implications from a prevention angle.
That said, pandemic and disease policy discussions generally focus more on enhancing preparedness and response.Footnote 54 It has also been noted that the environmental sector is often forgotten or left to the sidelines in national and global strategies for pandemic preparedness and mitigation,Footnote 55 and that current health security priorities and planning neglect the significant role of environmental factors in pandemic and disease prevention.Footnote 56
Tentative steps to further include the environmental element or environmental protection as a prevention measure have been attempted in the draft of the World Health Organisation’s Pandemic Treaty (yet to be adopted at the time of writing).Footnote 57 Article 4, dedicated to pandemic prevention, recognises that certain factors increase the risk of pandemics (i.e. environmental, climatic, social, anthropogenic, and economic factors), and places importance in their identification and in their consideration in the development and implementation of relevant policies, strategies, and measures at the international, regional, and national levels. Additionally, Article 5, where the One Health approach is further addressed after its definition in Article 1, expresses the commitment of the parties to identify and address the drivers of pandemics and the emergence and re-emergence of diseases at the interface between humans, animals, and the environment by introducing and integrating interventions into relevant pandemic plans.Footnote 58
Lastly, Article 3 includes the best available science and evidence as the basis for public health decisions for pandemic prevention among the principles guiding the parties:Footnote 59 theoretically, this could also include science advocating for area-based measures or other types of protective measures to maintain the integrity and coherence of habitats.Footnote 60
The above considerations denote that the inclusion of environmental considerations and environmental law measures in the fight against diseases in a One Health fashion is not as straightforward as one might expect; they do not mean to convey that overlaps do not exist in current legislation. Indeed, in the EU, a notable example of the integration of environmental and health considerations under one text is the Waste Framework Directive, where both environmental and human health protection have a prominent role.Footnote 61
Additionally, it should be noted that environmental law instruments have, at almost all times, developed independently from human health considerations.Footnote 62 This could be valid for the EU Nature Directives and for the Regulation on Deforestation-Free Products on forestry supply chains, which may nonetheless indirectly contribute to health objectives.
9.4 Regulation 2023/1115 on Deforestation-Free Products: A Regulation with a (Hidden) Health Dimension?
9.4.1 Preliminary Observations
The Regulation is part of a broader set of actions meant to address deforestation and forest degradation delineated in the European Green Deal:Footnote 63 the Biodiversity Strategy,Footnote 64 the Forest Strategy,Footnote 65 the Farm to Fork Strategy,Footnote 66 and the Commission’s Communication on stepping up EU action to protect and restore the world forests.Footnote 67 Together with the provisional agreement on the Nature Restoration Law concluded at the end of 2023 and its adoption in 2024 (which also covers forest ecosystems in the EU),Footnote 68 the Deforestation-free Products Regulation represents a significant step forward in the protection of the environment – forests in particular – both in the EU and in third countries.
The Regulation requires that the products it covers (products that contain, have been fed, or have been made with certain commodities, i.e. cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya, and wood) are ‘deforestation-free’. This marks a bold difference from the EU Timber Regulation,Footnote 69 which only focused on the legal provenance of timber products and which is repealed by this new Regulation. Indeed, a significant part of ongoing deforestation is legal according to the laws of the country of production,Footnote 70 meaning that focusing only on the legality element has not been entirely effective.Footnote 71 The Regulation is meant to fill these gaps to minimise the connected risk of lowered environmental standards to obtain market access.Footnote 72
9.4.2 The (Hidden) Link with the One Health Approach
The Regulation is, quite clearly, an environmental measure. Yet, it also has links to human and animal health. Indeed, addressing the link between land and health should be considered as belonging to a wider One Health strategy for disease emergence and spread, an environment-targeted operationalisation of the One Health approach as an integrated approach.Footnote 73
As observed above, measures on nature and forest protection, conservation, and restoration, if sufficiently ambitious, may have positive One Health implications. Most notably, efforts to keep forests intact in the EU and outside the EU constitute an expression of the One Health approach in the form of preventative action. Targeting value chains and supply chains connected to deforestation and forest degradation, which is what the Regulation is set out to accomplish from the European Union’s side, may be considered one of these preventative actions.
The relevance of the Regulation and its measures would be higher in relation to the comprehensive nexus connecting humans, animals, and the environment, but it is also noticeable with respect to the individual nexuses of the One Health approach, especially the animal–environmental and environmental–human health nexuses.
That said, the protection of human and animal health in keeping with a One Health approach is not among the goals of the Regulation (Article 1). Preambular 20 of the Regulation, recalling the importance of measures against deforestation and forest degradation for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), does state that the Regulation should contribute to meeting the goals of SDG 3 – good health and well-being – among others,Footnote 74 but this is not reflected in the Articles and Article 1 in particular, which only expressly considers the link of deforestation and forest degradation with climate change and biodiversity.
Considering the above, it can be wondered how effective the Regulation could be in tackling deforestation and forest degradation, and thus be instrumental from a One Health perspective.
While it is true that most commodities may be consumed at the local or regional level, it is crucial to account for the relevance of imports and exports. The EU consumption of products such as palm oil, cattle, soy, cocoa, coffee, timber, and rubber, also in their processed forms, accounts for 10 per cent of the global share of deforestation and forest degradation when considering the total final consumption (which is, then, deforestation embodied in the consumption).Footnote 75 In this sense, tackling these commodities through Union policy intervention could bring the highest benefits for the unit value of trade,Footnote 76 and demand-side action seemed to hold the most substantial potential to deliver the EU’s commitments and ensure increased sustainability in supply practices:Footnote 77 indeed, the more significant the EU consumption and, thus, intra and extra EU imports, the larger the leverage can be expected from EU action targeting deforestation and forest degradation.Footnote 78
Further, from the list of commodities covered (wood, cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, and soya), it can immediately be noted how this instrument could be interesting to consider from a One Health perspective. First, forest activities and forest work, which could be associated with any commodity linked to deforestation, are among the epidemiological risk factors for certain zoonotic diseases,Footnote 79 and a higher risk of deforestation for different commodities would likely be carried onto the epidemiological risk. A second relevant matter is the possibility of detrimental practices in the cultivation of these commodities. For example, palm oil plantations not only involve deforestation and biodiversity loss,Footnote 80 but are also linked to respiratory illnesses and pollution.Footnote 81 Third, and this specifically concerns the rearing of cattle, not only would deforestation be carried out to make space for cattle with all the environmental issues that this would entail, but cattle rearing in deforested land could lead to increased contacts between wildlife or disease vectors, farm animals, and humans.Footnote 82
Finally, the Regulation covers the supply chain of the concerned products deriving from these commodities (imports and exports), meaning that it can be considered as having some extraterritorial (extra-EU) effects, potentially making the Regulation a measure of global interest.Footnote 83 Indeed, the responsibility in relation to ensuring deforestation-free or forest degradation-free supply chains is placed on EU-based companies, but the impact of complying with the due diligence requirements is likely to be felt also in third countries.Footnote 84
What is more, the Regulation may encourage non-EU countries to take (similar) protective measures, which could be beneficial for forests and, in turn, for human and animal health: while the Regulation does not create obligations for non-EU countries (it does so only for operators and traders, EU member states, and competent authorities), it introduces facilitations for the tasks of companies under this Regulation if non-EU countries have undertaken actions to enhance deforestation-free supply chains and reinforce traceability systems on commodities.Footnote 85
9.4.3 Structural Elements of the Regulation Having Relevance from a One Health Perspective
9.4.3.1 Matters of Scope and Definitions
With the scope of the Regulation, the concepts to consider are those of ‘relevant commodities’ (wood, cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, and soya)Footnote 86 and of ‘relevant products’ (‘products listed in Annex I that contain, have been fed with or have been made using relevant commodities’).Footnote 87
It is essential to note that the Regulation only applies to the ‘relevant products’. Cumulatively with the concept of relevant commodities, the notion of ‘relevant products’ helps more precisely identify the scope and the reach of the Regulation. However, it also limits its scope: with a list of defined products, there may be significant gaps concerning products that are not included in Annex I, and that contain, have been made, or have been fed with the relevant commodities.Footnote 88 This could limit the effectiveness of the Regulation in tackling deforestation phenomena.
Further, one of the most important definitions in this Regulation is the definition of ‘forest’. This definition is crucial for the scope of the legal act because the Regulation is built around the additional (and also critical) concepts of ‘deforestation’ and ‘forest degradation’, which can only occur in what is considered a ‘forest’ by the law. The definition of ‘forest’ in the RegulationFootnote 89 mirrors the FAO definition of forest.Footnote 90 This was a conscious choice as it was considered (particularly by the EU Council)Footnote 91 that the definitions in the Regulation should be built on internationally agreed concepts.Footnote 92 Accordingly, ‘forest’ in the Regulation is defined as: ‘land spanning more than 0,5 hectares with trees higher than 5 metres and a canopy cover of more than 10 per cent, or trees able to reach those thresholds in situ, excluding land that is predominantly under agricultural or urban land use’.Footnote 93
Given that the Regulation is built around the concept of ‘forest’, other ecosystems that are not ‘forest’, which could also be interesting to protect from a One Health perspective, are not covered by the Regulation. Forests are not the only ecosystems impacted by economic activities, and forest protection should not lead to the conversion or degradation of other natural ecosystems.Footnote 94 With this in mind, the possibility of extending the scope beyond forests was embedded in the law,Footnote 95 particularly with regard to land with high carbon stocks and with high biodiversity value, such as grassland, peatlands, and wetlandsFootnote 96 (with the potential challenges from a One Health point of view),Footnote 97 as these are also increasingly under pressure from conversion and degradation due to commodity production for the EU market.Footnote 98
Two other crucial definitions are those of ‘deforestation’ and ‘forest degradation’, which also carry the scope of the Regulation: the legal act is dedicated to market access and the export of deforestation-free products, and being ‘deforestation-free’ is one of the criteria for market access and export.Footnote 99
The Regulation defines ‘deforestation’ as ‘the conversion of forest to agricultural use, whether human-induced or not’,Footnote 100 where ‘agricultural use’ is ‘the use of land for the purpose of agriculture, including for agricultural plantations and set-aside agricultural areas, and for rearing livestock’.Footnote 101 It should be noted that ‘deforestation’ only includes situations of forest clearance for subsequent agricultural use, be it plant or animal agriculture, thus leaving out other important types of deforestation such as deforestation for infrastructure,Footnote 102 which is a relevant aspect for health considerations. With regard to this definition, questions arise in the case of deforestation aimed at timber harvesting not followed by conversion to agricultural or other use, as this does not seem to be included in the realm of situations covered by the definition of deforestation or forest degradation.
The definition of ‘forest degradation’ covers structural changes to forest cover in the form of specific forms of conversion: ‘conversion of (a) primary forests or naturally regenerating forests into plantation forests or into other wooded land; or (b) primary forests into planted forests’.Footnote 103
There is no definition of what degradation is beyond the indicated types of conversion. The justification for this specific choice is that it would make it possible to act quickly and in a manner that is instantly measurable and verifiable. This would be, at least, the initial definition, potentially subject to future expansion in the revision of the text.Footnote 104 While these reasons have some merit, opting for such a definition might lead to other types of degradation not being covered, such as timber harvesting not followed by conversion. That said, the door was left open (with careful wording) for reconsidering the definition of ‘forest degradation’, taking into account progress made in international discussions and forest diversity worldwide, after an in-depth analysis has been conducted regarding that process.Footnote 105
9.4.3.2 Requirements for ‘Access’ to, or Export from, the EU Market
The commodities and products covered by the Regulation must meet certain requirements to be placed or made available on the EU market or exported from the EU.
The requirements are cumulatively indicated in Article 3: such products and commodities (1) must be deforestation-free, (2) must be produced following the relevant legislation of the country of production, and (3) must be covered by a due diligence statement.Footnote 106
The status of ‘deforestation-free’, which also relies on the definitions above, indicates that only certain products can be considered ‘deforestation-free’ within the meaning of the Regulation: deforestation-free products are those that have not caused deforestation or forest degradation.Footnote 107 In principle, any commodity originating from a situation of deforestation or conversion to a plantation or planted forest is regarded as not deforestation-free, affecting the possibility of placing or making it available on the EU market or exporting it, as per Article 3.
This makes for a particularly interesting element from both environmental protection and a One Health perspective as it provides incisiveness to the Regulation by identifying clear and important consequences and, thus, potentially discouraging types of practices linked to deforestation and forest degradation worldwide.
The criterion of the legality of production relies necessarily on the definition of ‘relevant legislation of the country of production’. Interestingly, the definition includes not only land-use rights, environmental protection, and forest-related rules (e.g. forest management and biodiversity conservation) but also the rights of third parties; labour rights and human rights protected under international law; the principle of free, prior, and informed consent; and tax, anti-corruption, trade, and customs regulations.Footnote 108 While some criticisms can be formulated,Footnote 109 this broad definition of relevant legislation also makes the Regulation more incisive, with clear consequences.
The third criterion is related to the presence of a due diligence statement, entailing a due diligence process that operators have to carry out for all relevant products supplied by each supplier.Footnote 110 The due diligence system is a mechanism to ensure that the criteria of Article 3 (a) and (b) are complied with. Unless a simplified form of due diligence can be performed,Footnote 111 the ‘standard’ due diligence system foresees robust requirements in terms of: (1) mandatory information and proof;Footnote 112 (2) a robust risk assessment system to guarantee that there is no or only negligible risk that the products are not in line with Article 3;Footnote 113 and (3) a system of risk mitigation for those cases where the risk assessment has revealed that there is a risk or a non-negligible risk of non-compliance with the requirements in Article 3.Footnote 114
These due diligence rules present a comprehensive due diligence system that should be effective in ‘ferreting out’ non-deforestation-free and illegal products or commodities along the supply chain and indirectly contributing to the protection of the environment in the country of origin, thus strengthening the environmental–animal–human health nexus of the One Health framework.Footnote 115
9.4.3.3 Three-Tier System Regarding the Assessment of Countries
The three-tier system is envisaged in Article 29; it involves the assessment and classification of countries or parts of countries into three risk categories following an assessment: high-risk, low-risk, and standard-risk, respectively qualifying countries or parts of thereof where there is a corresponding risk of having relevant products not complying with the deforestation-free criterion (Article 3(a)).Footnote 116 The assessment needs to be based on certain criteriaFootnote 117 but may also consider additional criteria, such as information submitted by NGOs and other parties (e.g. Indigenous people), and transparency (or lack thereof) of the country concerned.Footnote 118
Such classification as low- or high-risk countries determines certain consequences. For example, products or commodities produced in low-risk countries enjoy certain facilitations, the most important of which is simplified due diligence.Footnote 119
The classification of countries according to a risk assessment is an interesting feature of the Regulation. If properly and objectively carried out, it could help modulate the efforts concerning the risks identified in the assessment and recognise the most problematic situations concerning deforestation and forest degradation, potentially generating positive environmental outcomes and positive effects on implementation and enforcement. This classification might also help steer consumption to safer (as in lower-risk) supply chains in low-risk countries due to the simplified due diligence required, and it might encourage higher-risk countries to take action against deforestation and forest degradation, with related health-connected outcomes. At the same time, aggregated assessments might overlook risks in key sourcing areas and risks associated with a specific supply chain.Footnote 120 With this in mind, the simplified due diligence as per Article 13 is, perhaps, too simplified as it represents quite a ‘dispensation’ from important provisions, warranting consideration of whether some form of risk assessment and risk mitigation should still be required.
9.5 Discussion and Conclusions: The Regulation as Part of a One Health Strategic Approach?
This chapter has highlighted the systemic importance of forests for the climate, the environment, and biodiversity and the specific value of forests for health, particularly in their role in disease regulation and of the interlinkages between climate change, environmental problems, biodiversity loss, and disease emergence and spread. This suggests that forest protection and care and avoiding deforestation and forest degradation should be a significant element of One Health-based preventative solutions.
The Deforestation-free Products Regulation inserts itself among the EU measures to counteract deforestation and forest degradation in the EU and abroad. The Regulation is bound to affect the supply chain of several products. While it might create additional burdens along the supply chains, it will be instrumental in ensuring that commodity and product production does not come at the price of deforestation and forest degradation.
The Regulation is a well-rounded text; it pays attention to many aspects related to forest commodities and their supply chain, deforestation, and forest degradation. It addresses not only the issue of the illegality of harvesting but also includes a more qualitative assessment with respect to deforestation and forest degradation with the central concept of ‘deforestation-free’. Admittedly, the definitions of forest, deforestation, and forest degradation could be more in line with scientific concepts, and the Regulation could be extended to cover more commodities, products, and different ecosystems. However, overall, the final result seems sufficiently tight and ambitious. Additionally, it should be noted that the Regulation also foresees several types of obligations on the EU member states or competent authorities on checks, controls, and reporting obligations,Footnote 121 which are instrumental for the effective implementation and enforcement of the Regulation.
The Regulation is not meant to address human and animal health but ‘only’ to respond to the climate and biodiversity crises. However, without expressly saying so in its objectives, it can be appreciated how the Regulation promotes healthier and more intact ecosystems, likely with worldwide effects, and can work to mitigate climate change and biodiversity loss, all elements linked to the potential for better health outcomes for people and animals. The relatively high ambition of the text and its ‘tightness’ (potentially not allowing for many loopholes) can be sufficient to reap certain benefits from a health perspective, including by steering and encouraging the adoption of forest-friendly practices and modes of agriculture which reduce deforestation. The Regulation’s incisiveness in relation to its implementation and enforcement is also an element of value for human and animal health, in addition to its obvious relevance for environmental health. In this perspective, the Regulation could serve as a way to kickstart the process of better forest care and protection outside the EU, complement the EU framework on nature protection and potentially contribute to disease prevention, especially if considered together with other vital measures (e.g. disease surveillance, public health measures) in true One Health fashion.
