Home › Geen categorie

The world needs resilient smallholder farmers – Can the EUDR help?

This morning I asked my colleague Jesus Diaz, from Peru, whether farmers were seeing any financial benefits from organizing compliance with the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). For example, are buyers offering to pay more for compliant material?

Jesus looked surprised by that question. Farmers are working to meet the regulation’s requirements, including organising legality documents and polygon data. But these are organized and pre-financed by their cooperative, and farmers are expected to pay the money back.

Now, surely supporting farmers is not the primary intention of the EUDR. Its intention is to ensure the production of goods intended for the European market are not linked to deforestation. A legitimate, worthwhile pursuit. We cannot fault the intention of the EUDR, yet its implementation tells another story: a story of unintended consequences. In this story we see the costs of compliance ending up on the ledgers of under-resourced smallholder farmers, and often we see them unable to meet these demands and as a result we see them ‘passively excluded’ from the EU’s market.

This is happening in the context of increasing geopolitical tension putting strain on trade and livelihoods, and it is happening as climate change begins to take its toll on agricultural landscapes. In such a hard time I know that most of us would want to see the opposite: namely to see vulnerable smallholders supported in their journey towards more resilience.

EUDR: what does compliance mean?

Which brings me back to the EUDR. If we want to support farmers in this period, while achieving the objectives of the EUDR, we need to rally behind implementation strategies that do not exclude the farmers who cultivate the coffee, cocoa, rubber and oil palms that feed us and power the global economy. Instead we need an implementation of EUDR that supports real change, resilience and livelihoods. And there is a way to get there: a way to achieve a win-win implementation. But it will take a change of strategy from both companies and the competent authorities charged with enforcing the EUDR.

Let me explain.

  • The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) will apply as of 30 December 2026 for large and medium operators, and six months later for micro and small operators.
  • According to Article 3, operators importing products into the EU that are in scope of the EUDR need to ensure their products are deforestation free and legally produced (according to the laws of the sourcing countries) and declare this in a Due Diligence Statement.
  • Articles 8, 9, 10 and 11 require operators to exercise due diligence prior to bringing products on the EU market. For products with a non-negligible risk of being associated with deforestation, operators are required to implement risk-mitigation measures. If the risk cannot be brought down to a “negligible” level via mitigation, trading the product is prohibited.

Credit to EFI, for this great breakdown

The EUDR thus combines a prohibition (Article 3) with a due diligence obligation regarding the products potentially associated with deforestation (Articles 8-11). I believe that we need to explore opportunities for competent authorities and companies to implement risk mitigation approaches related to the concerned shipments, as opposed to excluding smallholders involved. This would mean that, when the due diligence system is properly applied and implemented, and appropriate mitigation measures are tied to the imported product, then risk-based due diligence (Arts. 8–11) is seen as the process of achieving compliance (Art. 3).

Excluding smallholders does not reduce deforestation

What this means for each commodity will be slightly different, depending on the European market share and volume produced by smallholders, but let’s take the example of palm oil. When it comes to palm oil, corporates have a choice to source exclusively from bigger estates and players, meaning that they can entirely avoid smallholder farmers as a means of complying with the EUDR. This lets them avoid the additional work of smallholder inclusion. In the case that these specific smallholders were linked with deforestation – which is most often NOT the case – then supporting these smallholders is an inherently better approach to achieving the underlying goal of the EUDR, that of avoiding deforestation. If we work with these deforestation linked farmers we can help them move away from this practice. Once the products from deforested lands are on the market, it is too late to prevent deforestation, meaning that the EUDR, in such cases, has failed in its ultimate goal.

Of course it is not one-size fits all. In the cocoa and coffee sectors sourcing from smallholders is a necessity, but this only means we need to adapt implementation approaches that take into account the complexities of each commodity and each region.

This is not an easy task, but fortunately we are not starting from zero. Recently Aidenvironment released a report defining six types of risk mitigation measures that have the dual purpose of reducing deforestation and forest degradation, as well as promoting the inclusion and rights of smallholders, cooperatives, and IP & LC. These approaches include:

  • Capacity building
  • Certification
  • Forest management & conservation
  • Landscape & jurisdictional approaches
  • Livelihood support
  • Traceability & transparency

The risk mitigation approaches listed above are often exactly the things we as Solidaridad work on to strengthen farmer resilience. If the EUDR further stimulates (operators) to develop and implement such dual purpose risk mitigation approaches to build and ensure EUDR compliance, this would drive exactly the changes we would like to see in a world where farmers are increasingly vulnerable.

Win-win implementation

Shaking hands – Malaysia 2026 © Solidaridad / Makmende

If companies are nudged to use such approaches, they would then be taking a proactive, solution-oriented role, rather than simply excluding perceived risk-prone suppliers (smallholder farmers) from the EU market. It would stimulate them to ask: ‘How can we address risks associated with these regions?’ Rather than ‘How can we get these regions or smallholders out of our value chain?’

By encouraging companies to develop long-term, holistic risk mitigation strategies—not just those focused on non-deforestation and legality—but also on forest preservation (or even reforestation) and inclusion of the rights of smallholders, Indigenous Peoples, and local communities, the EUDR could be so much more impactful. The EUDR’s requirements could foster proactive, collective organization, and the programmes and partnerships needed to mitigate a wide range of risks, all the while ultimately strengthening EUDR compliance in the long run.

Requiring such approaches under the EUDR would encourage competent authorities to ask critical questions when assessing due diligence systems and risk mitigation strategies like: How does your risk mitigation programme effectively mitigate the risk of your imported product being linked to deforestation?

Actually OECD Due Diligence Guidelines already require companies to implement such approaches. Further obligations and enforcement under the EUDR would strengthen these existing requirements and create a stronger pull towards compliance. The forthcoming Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive and the Forced Labour Regulation, will add more weight to many of these same requirements.

In summary, if both companies and competent authorities prioritise risk-based due diligence instead of exclusion, I hope and expect there would be a bigger chance of the EUDR stimulating companies to implement proactive programmes that would lead to forest conservation and farmer resilience. This way, EUDR can actually drive massive positive impact.

I am very curious into your thoughts! What do we need to do to ensure that the EUDR’s implementation is inclusive and impactful across different commodities?

Urgency plus optimism equals solutions. That powerful message from the Earthshot Prize reminds us that while the challenges facing our planet are significant, positive action can deliver real change.

At Orangutan Land Trust, our vision is clear: enabling sustainable solutions for the long-term survival of orangutans in the wild. On International Orangutan Day, it’s an opportunity to celebrate these remarkable great apes while recognising that protecting them also means protecting forests, tackling climate change, and supporting sustainable livelihoods.

The challenges facing orangutans

Orangutans are under increasing pressure from a range of threats. Deforestation, mining, and large-scale infrastructure projects, including hydroelectric dams, continue to reduce and fragment their habitat. As forests are opened up, human-wildlife conflict also becomes more common, placing both people and orangutans at greater risk.

Climate change is making these challenges even more severe. More frequent extreme weather events and flooding are damaging already fragile habitats. In North Sumatra, climate-driven floods in November 2025 killed 58 critically endangered Tapanuli orangutans, the world’s rarest and most endangered great ape, highlighting how environmental change is becoming a direct conservation threat.

Recent research also paints a sobering picture. Despite slower rates of forest loss in some areas, the Sumatran orangutan population has declined by nearly 20% over the past decade, while the Tapanuli orangutan remains perilously close to extinction. Wildfires, often intensified by prolonged dry conditions and degraded peatlands, add further pressure by destroying valuable forest habitat. With the El Niño effect returning this year, fears have been raised for increased fire activity in Borneo and Sumatra (the only islands where orangutans live).

Sustainable solutions are making a difference

While these challenges are urgent, there is every reason to be optimistic. Across Indonesia, conservation organisations, local communities, researchers, governments, and responsible businesses are working together to create lasting solutions.

Activities supported by Orangutan Land Trust include reforestation projects to restore degraded forests, and peatland restoration, including canal blocking and rewetting, which helps reduce fire risk, improve ecosystem health, and store significant amounts of carbon. These revived peatlands are vital habitat for species like the Bornean orangutan. Together, these efforts benefit wildlife, strengthen local communities, and contribute to climate change mitigation.

Innovation is also playing an important role. Citizen science programmes, developed with the guidance of Borneo Futures and implemented in collaboration with oil palm growers, are helping identify the presence of wildlife, including orangutans, within agricultural landscapes. This information supports better land management and demonstrates how conservation and sustainable agriculture can work hand in hand.

Creating wildlife corridors and safe havens through partnerships with communities and land users, including palm oil companies, is another important step. By connecting fragmented habitats, orangutans can move more safely through the landscape, increasing their chances of long-term survival.

The role of sustainable palm oil

Many people are surprised to learn that choosing certified sustainable palm oil is one of the simplest ways they can help protect orangutans.

When produced responsibly, sustainable palm oil helps reduce pressure on forests by encouraging better environmental practices, protecting high conservation value areas, and supporting continuous improvement across the supply chain. It also helps meet the growing global demand for vegetable oils using less land than many alternative crops, making it an important part of a more sustainable future.

Consumers can make a real difference by looking for the RSPO trademark on products, although not every company that uses certified sustainable palm oil displays the logo. Apps such as the WAZA PalmOil Scan app (available in the United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand and Singapore) can help you identify brands using certified sustainable palm oil. If one of your favourite products isn’t using sustainable palm oil, let the company know that you’d like them to. If they are, thank them and tell them that sustainability matters to you. Positive consumer feedback encourages companies to continue investing in responsible sourcing.

Every action counts

Supporting orangutan conservation doesn’t always require a large financial commitment. Donations to Orangutan Land Trust help fund the vital work of trusted local partners, including Conservation Action Network Borneo and Borneo Nature Foundation, who are protecting forests, restoring habitats, and safeguarding orangutans on the ground.

But even if donating isn’t possible, your everyday purchasing decisions still have power. By choosing products made with certified sustainable palm oil and encouraging businesses to source responsibly, you become part of the solution.

Together, we can create a future where orangutans thrive

International Orangutan Day reminds us that protecting orangutans is about more than saving a single species. It’s about conserving forests, supporting communities, tackling climate change, and creating a more sustainable future for everyone.

When consumers, businesses, conservation organisations, and governments work together, positive change is possible. Every restored forest, every protected habitat, and every sustainable purchasing decision brings us one step closer to a world where orangutans continue to thrive in the wild for generations to come.

This International Orangutan Day, take action. Choose certified sustainable palm oil, share why sustainability matters, support organisations protecting orangutans where you can, and inspire others to do the same. Together, our choices can help secure a brighter future for orangutans, people, and the planet.

Real sustainability is harder than any statement can capture. It depends on coordination—on actors with different priorities, mandates, and constraints choosing to align around a shared goal. That is difficult to achieve and easy to underestimate. It is also where the most credible environmental results come from: not from paper compliance, but from sustained work in a specific place.

The banks of the La Pasión River, in Sayaxché, Petén, are one of those places.

The La Pasión is one of Guatemala’s three largest watersheds: 354 kilometers long, with 65 communities that depend on it and margins that form part of the Mesoamerican Biological Corridor. Much of its riparian zones had been cleared for agricultural use. Today they are being restored through a model that proves something important—that responsible production and conservation can move forward together.

The first 70 hectares are already underway, part of a 210-hectare target. Funding comes from Olenex, through its Mariposa initiative; coordination comes from GREPALMA together with Grupo HAME–REPSA, which has been working in the watershed since 2020. But what holds the project together is not the funding: it is the La Pasión River Watershed Restoration Roundtable, a multi-stakeholder platform recognized by the Municipality of Sayaxché in 2024, which brings government institutions, the private sector, civil society, and international cooperation together around a shared goal. The National Council of Protected Areas (CONAP), the National Forest Institute (INAB), the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Food (MAGA), the Ministry of Education (MINEDUC), The Nature Conservancy, the German Agency for International Cooperation (GIZ), the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Heifer International, local associations, and the Apostolic Vicariate of Petén are all part of it.

Reforestation was its first concrete step. Native species are grown in a forest nursery inside El Rosario National Park, authorized by CONAP and developed together with INAB. Progress is tracked under the national zero-deforestation system, with independent satellite verification.

“Forest landscape restoration only produces lasting impact when it is built collectively. Restoring the banks of the La Pasión River is a strategic investment that strengthens water security, protects biodiversity, and builds resilience against climate change.” — Javier de Paz, Head of the Forest Restoration Department, INAB.

What draws such different actors together is not coincidence. It is the river itself: a source of life, a biological corridor, a cultural landscape dotted with Mayan archaeological sites. Institutions that rarely sit at the same table found common ground here. The aspiration is for the Roundtable to be formally institutionalized—the step that would make the model replicable in other watersheds across the region. What sustains an environmental outcome is its roots in the territory: the people willing to build a shared future, the agreements they uphold, and the place they bring back.

Project description: La Pasión River

Images: José Fares – GREPALMA

A new study by Etifor and the University of Padua shows that oil palm cultivation can significantly reduce its environmental impact when embedded in controlled, traceable and sustainability-driven supply chains. The findings challenge the simplistic narrative of palm oil as the sole driver of deforestation, shifting the debate toward scientific evidence, innovation, certification and supply chain accountability. 

Key Messages

  • Sustainable palm oil is no longer just a commodity: it is becoming one of the world’s most traceable, transparent and closely monitored supply chains.
  • The real challenge is not to demonize sustainable palm oil, but to accelerate supply chain transformation: more traceability, more accountability, more sustainability. That is the key message emerging from the Etifor and University of Padua study.
  • Deforestation risk linked to palm oil in Italian consumption is declining: the Etifor and University of Padua study points to a real shift. What matters are the trends in the data, not simplified narratives.

Global Deforestation is Slowing Down

Global deforestation is slowing down. And today, this is no longer just a hope, it is a data-driven trend.

According to the recent “Deforestation Made in Italy” study by Etifor and the University of Padua, the global annual rate of forest loss declined from 17.6 million hectares per year between 1990 and 2000 to 10.9 million hectares between 2015 and 2025.

Italy is also showing encouraging signs, with a progressive reduction in deforestation risk embedded in national consumption. This trend is further confirmed by a report from Global Forest Watch and the University of Maryland’s GLAD laboratory, which found that primary tropical rainforest loss declined by 36% in 2025 compared to the previous year.

Against this backdrop, the debate around sustainable palm oil is also evolving. For years, palm oil was portrayed as the “perfect villain” of globalization, shaped by alarmist campaigns, “palm oil-free” labels and the belief that removing a single ingredient could save tropical forests.

Yet behind this shift are years of investment, stronger public policies, greater supply chain traceability and growing pressure on governments and companies. Sustainability is no longer just about communication: it is increasingly becoming an industrial and competitive factor.

Sustainable Palm Oil: From Deforestation Villain to Supply Chain Transformation

This is where the Etifor study challenges one of the most established narratives of the past decade.

Palm oil is still widely perceived as a symbol of global deforestation. But the data tells a more nuanced story: the supply chain most criticized, monitored and regulated over the last twenty years is also becoming one of the fastest-transforming.

According to researchers from the University of Padua, the deforestation risk associated with sustainable palm oil consumption in Italy has shown “a marked decline over the years.” And this is the data point that changes the conversation.

Between 2005 and 2023, palm oil still represented the commodity with the highest embedded deforestation risk in Italian consumption, an estimated 201,800 hectares, equal to 34% of the total. But the key point is not the static snapshot: it is the direction of change. The trend is declining.

In other words, supply chains under pressure are reacting. Certifications, stronger traceability, tighter controls, investments and new international regulations are driving a tangible transformation across the sector.

The EUDR is Accelerating a Transformation Already Underway

The EUDR does not emerge in a regulatory vacuum: it is accelerating a transformation already underway across many global supply chains.

For years, major producing countries have been strengthening environmental standards, controls and traceability systems, driven by international pressure, ESG investments and the need to maintain access to Western markets.

And the most emblematic example is sustainable palm oil itself. The supply chain most demonized over the past twenty years is now also one of the most prepared to meet EUDR requirements, following more than a decade of scrutiny from NGOs, investors and international institutions.

The Etifor and University of Padua study highlights a key shift: more and more companies are treating deforestation risk as an industrial and strategic issue, adopting concrete tools to strengthen traceability, supply chain oversight and environmental policies.

Sustainability is no longer just a reputational lever. It is becoming economic infrastructure, a market requirement and a competitive advantage across global supply chains.

Beyond the Slogans: Sustainability Is Measured by Data

For years, the debate was trapped in slogans, “palm oil yes or no”, growth versus forests, economy versus environment. But today, the data tells a different story: the real challenge is not eliminating a commodity, but transforming supply chains.

That is the paradigm shift highlighted by the Etifor study: less ideology, more traceability, transparency and accountability. Sustainability is no longer just communication, it is becoming an industrial issue shaped by rules, innovation and measurable supply chain responsibility.

The data shows that agricultural production, economic growth and forest protection can evolve together. The challenge today is not stopping development, but making it sustainable.

 

(Reproduced with permission from Competere. Read the original article here, or in Italian here. Spanish version can be read here.)

A new roadmap for meaningful engagement in global food supply chains centers the voices, knowledge, and agency of those most affected—workers, farmers, and communities.

Across the world, people who plant, harvest, process, and live alongside our food systems carry knowledge companies will never find in audits or distant reports. Yet too often, those people remain unheard. Workers facing unsafe conditions, communities protecting land and water, women and migrant workers confronting daily discrimination. Their lived experience rarely makes it into the rooms where decisions are made.

Seven organizations came together to shift that reality. Primarily written by Oxfam and co-created together with AIM-Progress, amfori, Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI), Ethical Trade Sweden, the Fair Labor Association (FLA), and the Food Network for Ethical Trade (FNET) , we developed Meaningful Stakeholder Engagement: Practical Guidance for Companies in the Agriculture and Food Manufacturing Sector,  a practical tool to help companies engage stakeholders in ways that are safe, respectful, and enable them to genuinely influence the decisions that affect their lives. The guidance focuses on rightsholders including workers, smallholder farmers, communities, and their legitimate representatives. It was created through a consultative process that reflects the principles of stakeholder engagement it promotes, including dialogue with companies, civil society organizations, trade unions, and rightsholders. This process and collaboration itself signal something essential: meaningful engagement is not a solo effort. It requires dialogue, negotiation, and shared purpose.

The reality we must confront

Companies across agriculture and food manufacturing are under growing pressure to identify and address human rights and environmental risks. Many recognize the need for stronger engagement but struggle with how to do it meaningfully, particularly in complex, often opaque and multi-tiered supply chains. Evidence shows that rightsholders are rarely consulted in risk assessments and even less frequently involved in shaping solutions (WBA, Social Benchmark, January 2026). This means people facing the greatest risks remain the least likely to be heard.

Meanwhile, communities speak to the realities they face. As a member of the Barro Branco community in Jaqueira, Brazil told us:
“The company has no relationship with the community. The only relationship is conflict.”

When rightsholders’ voices are missing, companies miss critical signals and harms that could have been prevented continue unchecked.

Companies see this too. One representative captured the gap clearly:

“As a buyer we are 1–2 steps removed from the rightsholder. Understanding who can speak on their behalf, who is the right representative or channel, and making sure they can speak openly is key.”

This guidance was created to help bridge that divide between those who make decisions and those who experience their consequences.

Why meaningful stakeholder engagement is urgently needed

The agriculture and food sector is the world’s largest labor sector, but also one of the most unequal and high‑risk. And yet, meaningful engagement with workers and communities remains rare. Based on rightsholder testimony, Oxfam’s field experience, and global evidence, five realities make MSE indispensable:

  1. Hidden risks in long, often opaque and high‑risk supply chains
    Many impacts are invisible to audits or desk‑based assessments. Only direct, respectful engagement can reveal how risks actually show up in people’s lives.
  2. Intersecting and compounding forms of inequalities among rightsholders
    Women, migrant workers, Indigenous peoples, and children in smallholder households often experience multiple, intersecting and compounding forms of inequalities – including gender, age, migration status, ethnicity, race, income level, and disability. Without deliberate engagement, their concerns remain unheard — even when they make up most of the workforce.
  3. Interlinked social and environmental harms
    Low wages, unsafe conditions, heat stress, land conflicts, water scarcity, discrimination, and gender‑based violence compound each other. Understanding these dynamics requires listening to those directly affected.
  4. Power imbalances silence voices
    Concentrated buyer power and thin margins limit the ability of farmers, suppliers, and workers to speak up safely. MSE helps create trusted channels for honest dialogue.
  5. Companies are struggling — and the consequences are visible
    Many companies are still struggling to operationalize human rights due diligence social inclusion and living incomes. Without meaningful engagement, early warning signs are missed—and harms persist.

These realities shape why this guidance is needed: people closest to risk must be central to identifying, preventing, and remedying harm.

How does this guidance help companies conduct meaningful engagement?

The guidance is grounded in something simple but transformative: rightsholders must be able to shape the decisions that affect their lives. Not symbolically, not as an afterthought, but as cocreators of solutions. To support this, the guidance offers:

  • Clear actionable steps on who to engage, how to engage, and when across due diligence processes.
  • Practical tools and templates including stakeholders mapping approaches, engagement planning frameworks, and methods for collecting and using input safely
  • Real examples from agricultural and food manufacturing supply chains.
  • Guidance for implementation, designed for use by procurement, sustainability, and human rights team

Designed for real-world use, companies can integrate these tools directly into existing risk management and due diligence systems.

Why meaningful engagement changes outcomes

When rightsholders influence decisions, companies:

  • Identify risks earlier and more accurately
  • Prevent harm before it escalates
  • Strengthen human right due diligence processes
  • Build trust that makes supply chains more resilient, and grounded in reality.

This is not only a social imperative—it is a business one. Better engagement leads to better information, stronger decisions, and reduced exposure to operational, legal, and reputational risk.

For rightsholders, meaningful engagement is about recognition, agency and safety. It creates space for people to speak without fear, influence decisions, and claim a role in processes that have long excluded them.

This guidance aims to support a shift away from extractive consultation and towards engagement that redistributes voice, influence, and dignity.

A collective invitation

This is not a one-size-fits-all model. It is a roadmap for companies ready to engage differently, ready to center workers and communities, listen deeply, and build decisions with those most affected.

We invite companies and investors

  • Download and use the guidance
  • Adapt it to your context and operations
  • Integrate it into due diligence and risk management processes
  • Share feedback on the guidance here

Because engagement should not be symbolic. It should be transformative.

[Reprinted with permission from Oxfam America.]

A new scientific paper published in Media Konservasi finds that consumer boycotts of palm oil have not played a significant role in reducing deforestation in Indonesia, the world’s largest palm oil producer. Instead, recent declines in forest loss are linked to stricter land‑use regulation, policy enforcement and wider sustainability efforts, reinforcing the case for supporting sustainable palm oil rather than shunning the commodity altogether.

 

Indonesia’s primary forest loss significantly decreased after 2016

 

The study, “Exploring the Elephant in the Room: Do Oil Palm Boycotts Reduce Tropical Deforestation?”, reviews more than sixty academic publications alongside official statistics, satellite data and online trends for three high‑profile calls‑to‑action: ‘ban palm oil’, ‘boycott palm oil’ and ‘sustainable palm oil’, including the hashtags #Boycottpalmoil, #ProtectPongo and #SaveOrangutans. Its conclusion is clear: commodity boycotts have not significantly influenced Indonesia’s deforestation trajectory.

“Consumers deserve honest, science‑based guidance,” said Bart W van Assen, lead author, and advisor at Orangutan Land Trust. “This research confirms what many experts have been saying for years: boycotting palm oil is a blunt tool that does little to address deforestation, and can even shift demand to less‑efficient oils that need more land.”

 

Meridian Foods claimed palm oil equals deforestation to promote its products

 

Between 2003 and 2016, Indonesia’s annual forest loss fluctuated between about one and two million hectares, driven by a combination of large‑scale and smallholder agriculture, logging, mining, fires and other land‑use changes. Since 2016, multiple independent datasets show a marked reduction in deforestation, bringing losses to historic lows, though some recent upticks in 2022–2023 highlight the need for continued vigilance. The study notes that these shifts align with tighter permitting, moratoria on new concessions and other governance measures, not social‑media boycott campaigns.

 

Key findings:

•  No significant link between boycott campaigns and deforestation trends: Despite decades of activism targeting tropical timber, paper and pulp and palm oil, there is little evidence that boycotts have driven meaningful reductions in forest loss.

•  Sustainability narratives resonate more than boycotts: Google Trends analysis shows that searches for ‘sustainable palm oil’ dwarfed those for ‘ban palm oil’ and ‘boycott palm oil’ on the Web by more than fifteen‑fold over the 2018–2023 period.

•  Complex drivers require holistic solutions: Major causes of deforestation – from agricultural expansion and weak law enforcement to poverty and demographic pressure – cannot be solved by consumer purchasing decisions alone.

•  Commodity boycsotts can backfire: Previous research cited in the paper warns that blanket boycotts often fail to support sustainable resource management and can inadvertently increase pressures on forests.

“For companies and policy‑makers, the implication is straightforward,” Bart continued. “The most effective way to reduce deforestation is to invest in strong standards, transparent supply chains and jurisdictional initiatives – not to walk away from palm oil.”

 

 

Our recommedations:

The Sustainable Palm Oil Choice urges brands, retailers and public authorities to:
•  Prioritise certified sustainable palm oil that meets credible, independently verified standards.

•  Support smallholders and producing countries in meeting these standards, rather than penalising them through blanket exclusions.

•  Champion accurate communication about deforestation data, avoiding oversimplified maps or imagery that misclassify agricultural land as intact forest.

The Sustainable Palm Oil Choice welcomes the new study as an important evidence base for European and global debates on due diligence, deforestation‑free supply chains and responsible sourcing of vegetable oils.

The full paper can be read here: Van Assen 2026 Exploring The Elephant In The Room Do Oil Palm Boycotts Reduce Tropical Deforestation

Indonesia has the largest area of oil palm plantations in the world — around 16 million hectares of industrial and smallholder plantations in 2024 — contributing 60% of global palm oil production. The rapid expansion of oil palm during the 1990s and early 2000s, however, has left a growing share of plantations past their productive prime. Today, around 2.4 million hectares of smallholder oil palm are older than 25 years. Based on the oil palm yield curve, replanting at 25 years maximizes long-run productivity at the landscape level. To accelerate replanting, the Indonesian government launched a subsidy program in 2016, most recently doubling it to 60 million rupiah (~$3,631) per hectare in 2024. However, as of 2026, only 384,000 hectares of smallholder plantations received the replanting subsidies.

Our new research, published in npj Sustainable Agriculture, examines why the subsidy has not accelerated smallholder replanting, and what barriers prevent farmers from accessing it. We evaluate the long-run economic impacts of different replanting strategies using scenario analysis.  We found that smallholder farmers often delay replanting because it provides greater economic stability and comparable long-term returns in the absence of access to replanting subsidies and certified seedlings. While subsidies can improve long-term profitability (by 30% when replanting at age 25), the 7–8 year income recovery period remains a major deterrent. Without support, that gap stretches to 8–12 years. For a smallholder family with little savings, delayed replanting is not irrational — it is economic survival.

 

 

Beyond economics, several structural barriers prevent smallholders from accessing the subsidy. Many farmers lack formal land certificates, which are required for eligibility. The program also requires farmers to belong to a group collectively managing at least 50 hectares. In Riau province alone, 44% of smallholder plantations overlap with state forest zones — making legal land ownership, and therefore subsidy access, impossible without government reclassification of those lands.

 

Subsidies alone are therefore not enough. They must be paired with income support during the unproductive transition years — through mechanisms such as low-interest loans, mill partnerships, increased market access for intercropping products, or direct income assistance. Resolving the legal barriers around land tenure and streamlining the application process are equally important to unlock replanting across the millions of hectares of aging smallholder oil palm in Indonesia.

Zhao, J., Elmore, A.J., Lee, J.S.H., Numata, I., Zhang, X. and Cochrane, M.A., 2023. Replanting and yield increase strategies for alleviating the potential decline in palm oil production in Indonesia. Agricultural Systems, 210, p.103714.

Zhao, J., Cochrane, M.A., Lee, J.S.H., Zhang, X. and Chalil, D., 2026. Indonesia’s new replanting subsidy is insufficient to empower smallholder farmers to replant aging oil palms. npj Sustainable Agriculture, 4(1), p.32.

https://www.thejakartapost.com/adv-longform/2024/02/07/from-smallholder-to-global-contributorcultivating-prosperity-in-rural-indonesia.html

https://theedgemalaysia.com/node/792384

 

When people hear about palm oil, they often immediately think of orangutans, but the conversion of tropical rainforest to oil palm plantations affects many other iconic Southeast Asian species whose stories are less well known to both the general public and scientists. One of these ‘forgotten’ species is the sun bear (Helarctos malayanus). Like all bear species, sun bears need large patches of intact habitat to thrive, so the conversion of primary rainforest to oil palm plantations is a major conservation issue for this species. Sun bears may enter oil palm plantations to search for food, where they are vulnerable to snaring and poaching. Yet despite these risks, we still don’t have a range-wide understanding of how this species will respond to the expansion of oil palm plantations in Southeast Asia.

In a recent study published in the journal Integrative Conservation, my colleagues in the Ecological Cascades Lab at the University of Queensland and I examined multiscale habitat association of the sun bear across its range. We compiled camera trap detections of sun bears from both new and previously published studies and assessed how the number of detections changed in relation to habitat covariates such as forest size, human population, and extent of oil palm plantations. We found that sun bears were most regularly detected in large forests, but also in forests that neighbour humans and their infrastructure. These findings support earlier studies that found that sun bears require large intact forests, but also suggest that they are perhaps more resilient than previously realised and can persist in somewhat degraded habitat. A possible explanation for this adaptability is the sun bear’s dietary flexibility and its ability to shift to an insectivorous diet in degraded habitat.

[Photo credit: © 2026 The Author(s). Integrative Conservation published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Xishuangbanna Tropical Botanical Garden (XTBG).]

In regards to oil palm, we found that sun bear abundance decreased as the extent of oil palm in a landscape increased. Although sun bears may gain some benefit from feeding in oil palm plantations, they still require intact forest to retreat to, and the benefits of foraging in plantations are likely outweighed by the risks of snaring and poaching. Therefore, for sun bears and sustainable palm oil plantations to coexist in Southeast Asia it is essential that as much intact forest is conserved as possible and that semi-degraded areas are also protected, as these regions can still have conservation value for sun bears. We also recommend enforcement of poaching regulations. Finally, we recommend future studies on sun bears focus on their diet, to assess both their use of oil palm plantations for foraging and the hypothesis that dietary flexibility is the key to their adaptability. The sun bear’s plight may not be as visible as that of the orangutan, but with protection of key habitat and further research we can ensure the continued existence of this species and many others into the future.

Find out more: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/inc3.70071

 

Designing effective policy responses to tropical deforestation requires an understanding of the reasons behind it, commonly called deforestation drivers. In the tropics, over 90% of deforestation is driven by agriculture [1], but the specific commodities differ substantially across regions. For example, palm oil has been the most prominent deforestation driver in Indonesia, while it is pasture in Brazil and small scale, shifting agriculture in Central Africa [1,2]. Drivers also change in time because of new policies, economic shifts or changes in agricultural practices. Therefore, to enable targeted measures, it is necessary to attribute each new deforestation event to a specific driver.

In a recent study published in ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, Pišl et al. [3] propose a new approach to map deforestation drivers across the tropics. They train a deep learning model to recognize eleven land use classes, including the seven forest-risk commodities: cattle, oil palm, soy, rubber, cocoa, coffee, and timber. The model uses time series of satellite images as primary input, complemented by two additional data modalities: geographic coordinates and national statistics on the production of forest-risk commodities. Deforestation drivers are strongly clustered in space, and therefore providing the model a notion of location and regional trends can improve its performance in cases where satellite imagery alone is not enough.

 

 

Figure caption: The deep learning model architecture proposed in the study

When evaluated on a held-out dataset sampled across the tropics, the model achieves 87% accuracy across all classes, with the additional modalities bringing a 10% improvement. An analysis of the model’s behaviour shows that it uses the additional modalities to recognize classes strongly associated with spatial patterns, such as palm oil or rubber. To recognize drivers that can be found anywhere in the tropics, such as mining, the model mostly relies on the satellite imagery. The dataset used to train the model, compiled from free and public sources, is made available online [4].

The study provides an automatic, scalable and repeatable method to attribute deforestation to specific drivers. Independent of national governments and other stakeholders, it can support a wide range of use cases with objective data. For example, it can be used to detect areas where forest-risk commodities are produced on recently deforested land, indicating non-compliance with regulations such as the EU Deforestation Regulation. It can also improve the quantification of carbon emissions from deforestation, which depend on the specific land use that follows deforestation [5]. Overall, it demonstrates how modern machine learning can support evidence-based actions to conserve and protect tropical forests.

[1] Pendrill, Florence, et al. “Disentangling the numbers behind agriculture-driven tropical deforestation.” Science 377.6611 (2022): eabm9267.

[2] Singh, Chandrakant, and U. Martin Persson. “Global patterns of commodity-driven deforestation and associated carbon emissions.” (2024).

[3] Pišl, Jan, et al. “Mapping land uses following tropical deforestation with location-aware deep learning.” ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 232 (2026): 578-593.

[4] Pišl, Jan, et al. “Post-deforestation Land Use in the Tropics (PLUTo).” Version 2, Zenodo, 2025, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.17831353.

[5] Don, Axel, Jens Schumacher, and Annette Freibauer. “Impact of tropical land‐use change on soil organic carbon stocks–a meta‐analysis.” Global Change Biology 17.4 (2011): 1658-1670.

A difficult task – balancing food production and biodiversity

It is well understood that the oil palm industry has had profound ecological, social and economic impacts across the world. Land clearing has reduced wildlife habitats, led to biodiversity loss, and contributed to outbreaks of vector-borne and zoonotic diseases. At the same time, the oil palm industry is integral for supporting local farmer’s livelihoods and is crucial to the economy of many countries.

Oil palm trees are highly versatile, producing both palm oil from the fruit and palm kernel oil for uses ranging from food and biodiesel to cosmetics and industrial products, making oil palm the most land-efficient oil crop. Balancing food production and biodiversity conservation requires managing agricultural landscapes to serve both goals.

To support this, a team of researchers from UniSC in Australia, and Wild Asia, a Malaysian-based not-for-profit, examined how animal distribution in an oil palm plantation is influenced by both habitat features on the ground, and the surrounding landscape.

 

Our research

To understand how agricultural production can be sustained while promoting biodiversity, we studied animal distributions across an active oil palm plantation in Johor, Malaysia, a region projected to see continued agricultural growth. We used acoustic recorders called Audiomoths (attached to the tree in the picture below) to record the vocalising species (e.g. frogs, toads, birds, mammals) on the plantation during dawn and dusk.

We analysed over 280 hours of recordings from 35 blocks across the planation, detecting 75 birds, 12 amphibians (frogs and toads), and two mammals, including several threatened species. We then combined this acoustic data with information on the surrounding landscape, on-the-ground habitat features, and oil palm yields.

We found that species richness (the number of species in a location) was highest in plantation blocks with taller trees, lower levels of frond stacking (stacking dead palm fronds under trees as a natural fertiliser), and at blocks closer to water sources and disturbed forests. Disturbed forests included abandoned plantations that had been passively restored, or areas of natural land altered by human activity, such as selective logging. Our results suggested that over the duration of this study, birds, including fruit eating birds, did not have an observable impact on yield.

 

Recommendations for planation managers

Based on our findings, here are key recommendations for oil palm plantations that aim to enhance the biodiversity of amphibian, bird and mammal species.

  1. Promote connectivity with disturbed or restored forests. Due to the nature of oil palm farming, blocks may be left abandoned due to them having low yields and being difficult to maintain. Plantations should endeavour to restore these abandoned blocks by planting a range of native tree species with varied heights and canopy cover to help enhance biodiversity.
  2. Conserve tall remnant trees and plant additional tall trees.Since it is not realistic to increase the height of the oil palm trees themselves, conserving existing tall trees and introducing native tall trees can provide valuable habitat. Additionally, as trees take years to grow tall, platforms or “tree islands” (as discussed by Tohiran et al., 2024) can also be installed.
  3. Protect water bodies. Rivers, swamps, ponds, and drainage trenches are vital for many species. Keeping these areas clean and free from rubbish, sediment, fertiliser, and pesticide runoff helps reduce harm to non-target species, maintain biodiversity, and preserve ecosystem function.
  4. Limit frond stacking. Keeping frond stacking to under 50% of the ground cover within blocks ensures open areas remain, supporting both agricultural and environmental benefits.

 

More information:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10531-026-03259-2

[Feature Image by Wild Asia team member Khoo M. S. (konexer.org/khooms)]