'It's essential the UK approach to deforestation is fully aligned with the EU'

When the UK government recently announced that later this year it would begin a consultation process about secondary legislation intended to curb the country’s outsized global deforestation footprint, two non-governmental bodies were quoted in the media statement released by the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs (DEFRA). One was the World Wide Fund for Nature (WWF), the other the British Retail Consortium (BRC).

The BRC describes itself as the “go-to trade association for UK retail businesses”, with more than 200 major retailers and various niche associations representing 1000s of other, smaller retailers among its members. Here, via email, BRC Senior Policy Executive Lou Sherry and I discuss the still-pending regulations that, it is hoped, will reduce UK consumer and business complicity in the devastation of forests around the world:

DH: Before going into the details of DEFRA’s announcement, I want to pan out a little. Your colleague Andrew Opie was quoted as saying, by DEFRA, that the BRC has “long called for UK deforestation regulation as an important step in driving forest conservation across retail supply chains in line with business commitments.” Can you clarify for how long the BRC has been doing that?

LS: Our support for deforestation regulation certainly pre-dates my time at the BRC! Looking back through our archives, though, this has been a topic we’ve spoken publicly on since the early days of 2021 and beyond, when the Environment Act introduced Schedule 17 [on the “use of forest risk commodities in commercial activity” in the UK]. For instance, in 2019 - when the Act was just a Bill - we were expressing that “company actions need to be supported by effective laws and enforcement to protect the forests from exploitation.”

DH: And can you clarify how the BRC came to be involved? I.e. was it in response to a request from one or some of your members in particular?

LS: As with all of our advocacy priorities, the BRC will get involved when we receive a clear mandate from several of our members. UK retailers have been working to drive greater uptake of certified deforestation-free commodities across their supply chains for many years, but ultimately voluntary market action can only shift the dial so far. Regulation is essential to level the playing field and ensure all actors across the chain are working to the same standards - hence our collective voice in support of a UK-wide approach.

DH: Are you able to say who exactly those members were? Some of the supermarkets, perhaps?

LS: Due to wanting to ensure the BRC remains a safe, pre-competitive and confidential forum for retailers to engage on policy and related advocacy, we wouldn’t share details on specific members. However, I’d point to several major retailers that have independently spoken out in support of regulation to strengthen deforestation due diligence.

DH: Again, before delving into some of the details, I’d like to pan out once more and ask a broader, somewhat basic question. Can you explain why you - BRC itself or your members - think it’s so important for the UK to reduce its global deforestation footprint?

LS: Stating the most basic reason first: the environmental imperative. UK consumption - linked by retail supply chains to key producing regions at risk of forest loss - is recognised as a key driver of deforestation, and UK retailers are committed to ensuring their sourcing standards meet consumer, investor, and civil society expectations by not contributing to global deforestation. But it is also important to highlight the business rationale, too: supply chain resilience. Simply put, deforestation and land conversion drive climate instability and ecosystem decline, which pose significant risks to productivity and, ultimately, product availability and price. Reducing the UK’s deforestation footprint is not just a matter of responsibility and expectation - it makes good business sense.

DH: Are you in a position to say how important the UK is in a global sense, in terms of it being a consumer nation and its contribution to global deforestation? How does it compare with other countries and markets like the US, the EU and China?

LS: Owing to our focus on British retailers, I wouldn’t be in a position to comprehensively compare the UK’s role to other national actors across the global landscape. I will absolutely reiterate the importance of the UK market and, therefore, the commitment to ensure UK consumption does not continue to contribute to global deforestation. But your question does necessitate a comment on the importance of global collaboration: we know the UK market is only one driver of deforestation-linked imports, and it is certainly not the largest. It is pivotal for our government to work with international partners to ensure UK actions to prevent deforestation are joined up with meaningful global efforts. This links nicely back to the UK government’s recent announcement outlining its intention to align with the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).

DH: Ah, I was just coming to that! Your colleague Andrew’s quote in the DEFRA press release said the BRC “welcomed” the UK announcement in June. What would you say were the most positive things about it?

LS: There were two especially positive elements from a retailer perspective. First and most immediate, the decision on whether and when the EUDR would apply in Northern Ireland in respect of the Windsor Framework. Businesses had been long awaiting confirmation on the Northern Ireland position, and so that announcement was critical to allow businesses to move forward in their preparations with relative certainty and without any further delays. Second, that Government finally committed to implement secondary legislation to take forward a UK-wide regulatory approach to deforestation-risk commodities. The key point was not just the direction of travel itself, but the intent to - in time - fully align to the EUDR’s “deforestation-free” standard, covering both legal and illegal deforestation.

DH: Initially, as things currently stand, the regulation will apply only to illegal deforestation, which, for me, could render it unworkable in practice. How important do you think it is that it applies to all deforestation?

LS: It is crucially important. Looking at it from the government’s perspective, it is understandable the decision has been made to utilise the existing powers under the Environment Act and Timber Regulations to move forward quickly with a legality-based regime first, given the parliamentary time it may take to pass new legislation to extend the framework to legal deforestation. It is a positive sign that government has indicated the direction of travel is toward a future regime encompassing legal deforestation, but we would underscore the need for this to happen rapidly. It’s essential the UK approach is fully aligned with that of the EU’s, and that UK regulation does not set a benchmark several levels below that of current industry practice - in which commitments and standards have evolved toward the “deforestation-free” framework.

DH: What about the negatives? Was there anything in DEFRA’s announcement that you were disappointed in, that you don’t think they got right?

LS: I wouldn’t say they got anything “wrong” per se. Rather, the announcement should very much be seen as the baseline for government to build on with the clarity and pace required, otherwise it risks exacerbating the regulatory uncertainty that businesses are already facing. For instance, although clarity that the EUDR will be enforced in Northern Ireland is a positive step, the December 2026 deadline is extremely tight for businesses. We expect government to continue to work with retailers to provide the guidance necessary to support readiness for compliance. Similarly, the direction of travel for the UK-wide approach is also positive - but as we have already touched on, government must rapidly set out the legislative timetable for reaching the full “deforestation-free” regime, or they risk burdening businesses with an unaligned, delayed regulatory framework.

DH: What about the fact that, at the moment, it will only be “relevant local laws” pertaining to the ownership or use of the land where the commodities have been grown that need to be respected, rather than international law, jurisprudence and norms. In producer countries like Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Peru, Colombia etc permits and licenses are all the time being granted which make things seem apparently “legal”, when they obviously contravene international obligations or standards. Don’t you think the UK should aim for something higher?

LS: I definitely agree the UK should aim higher. I think you really clearly outline one of the limitations of a legality-only approach - and one of the reasons why various industry standards and sourcing commitments go beyond legality to cover all deforestation. It is essential for government to set out the details of how their future regulatory approach will move beyond legality checks as the primary evidence base, toward one that mandates location-based data-points to ensure no deforestation has occurred on that plot. We’re very much looking to government now to set out a timeframe to actualise this ambition.

DH: I think we’ve only got time and space for a few more questions. One is about the commodities - or “forest risk commodities”, as the Environment Act itself effectively calls them - that the regulation is currently set to apply to: wood, cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy and “certain derived products like chocolate and furniture”, as DEFRA puts it. To me, it seems a travesty gold isn’t in there, given its absolutely devastating impacts on, say, parts of the Amazon. Does the BRC have a position on that?

LS: Our current focus is on the core deforestation-risk commodities in scope of the EUDR and the proposed UK regulations. Whether new commodities could be added in future will depend on government taking further legislative action, with a view to the parallel developments that may occur in the EU. Additions to the core product scope is ultimately a watching brief.

DH: Earlier on, when I asked why it’s so important for the UK to reduce its deforestation footprint, you said it was because of the “environmental imperative” and it “makes good business sense.” What’s conspicuously absent there is human rights - i.e. because 100s of millions of people live in forests, and reportedly more than 1.5 billion depend on them for their livelihoods. In other words, when forests are cut down, people lose their land, homes, gardens, hunting grounds and commons etc. And indigenous people are particularly vulnerable - because of their long-held relationship to their land, their cultural and spiritual attachment to it, the sense of identity they derive from it. This is especially important to mention because recent statements from DEFRA and certain UK ministers don’t acknowledge this, as I’ve highlighted in past articles. Is this also not a reason for the BRC to care about this issue?

LS: Absolutely. Reducing the UK’s global deforestation footprint is not only an environmental imperative but also closely linked to the responsible sourcing and human rights commitments that UK retailers hold. Many businesses are increasingly taking a holistic approach to managing environmental and social impacts across their supply chains, including respect for human rights. Looking ahead, the EUDR requires businesses to assess human rights considerations within legality risk assessments, and we expect the future UK deforestation framework to adopt this approach. More broadly, the UK government’s ongoing review of Responsible Business Conduct is exploring mandatory human rights and environmental due diligence measures, which would expect businesses to consider environmental and human rights factors together when identifying and addressing risks in their supply chains.

DH: Can you clarify why you expect the UK to ultimately adopt the same kinds of human rights guarantees as the EUDR? I ask because the DEFRA PR from 23 June says the “upcoming consultation will propose that the GB regime covers the same core commodities and underlying information requirements” as the EUDR, but doesn’t explicitly say anything about human rights and legality risk assessments. Unless you’re including the latter under “underlying information requirements”?

LS: Yes, I would refer to the fact the GB regime is proposing to incorporate the same “underlying information requirements”, which is pointing to the same due diligence and risk assessment process.

DH: One last question. Do you have any intel on when the government’s consultation process will begin, beyond what DEFRA said about it being “later this year”?

LS: This very much remains a watching brief. We haven’t heard a precise timeframe beyond the intent to consult in “Autumn.”

DH: Lou, thank you very much.