The European Union has once again postponed the rollout of its flagship anti-deforestation law, the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). Initially introduced in 2021, the regulation was hailed as a turning point in Europe’s effort to sever the links between its consumption habits and global deforestation. Yet four years on, and after a second proposed delay, African producers who trade heavily with the EU remain caught between hope for a fairer global system and anxiety over compliance hurdles that may shape the future of their livelihoods.
At the heart of the EUDR is a simple but demanding idea: any product entering or leaving EU markets must be free from deforestation. Commodities such as palm oil, beef, timber, cocoa, coffee, rubber, and soy are at the center of the regulation, alongside derivative products like chocolate, leather, furniture, and tires. Companies will be required to prove that these goods can be traced back to the exact plot of land where they were grown, and that no deforestation occurred there after December 2020. The ambition is undeniable. Forests are disappearing at alarming rates, the FAO estimates Africa alone lost around 3.9 million hectares of forest annually between 2010 and 2020, much of it driven by agricultural expansion. For regions like West and Central Africa, the law could reshape commodity economies.
The European Union accounts for more than 60% of Africa’s cocoa exports, with Côte d’Ivoire and Ghana the world’s leading suppliers. These two countries together produce about 60% of the global cocoa supply, and more than 70% of their beans find their way to European chocolate factories. In practical terms, this means that the EUDR, once enforced, will directly influence millions of smallholder farmers whose average plot sizes are often less than two hectares. For coffee farmers in Ethiopia and Uganda, who collectively contribute to Africa’s 12% share of global coffee production, the law’s requirements could demand digital traceability systems in regions where even reliable electricity and internet remain limited.
The challenge is not only technical but economic. Building traceability systems requires investments in satellite monitoring, digital registries, and local land audits. Ghana, for instance, has launched the Cocoa Management System to register farms, but implementation is slow. If the EU’s IT system is not ready, as Commissioner Jessika Roswall admitted in her letter citing fears of “unacceptable” slowdowns and disruptions, it raises the uncomfortable question of how much harder it will be for rural cooperatives in Africa to meet the bar.
The stakes are enormous because African exporters cannot afford to lose EU markets. Coffee exports account for nearly 30% of Ethiopia’s total foreign exchange earnings. Cocoa brings in over $3 billion annually for Côte d’Ivoire. For these economies, exclusion from EU trade due to non-compliance would not only undermine livelihoods but also stall national development plans tied to these commodities.
At the same time, Africa also stands to gain from the EUDR’s vision if implemented thoughtfully. Deforestation is not just a European concern but a pressing African one. Nigeria, for example, has one of the highest rates of deforestation in the world, losing about 3.7% of its forests annually. The Democratic Republic of Congo, home to the Congo Basin, the world’s second-largest rainforest, loses close to half a million hectares each year. These losses threaten biodiversity, erode climate resilience, and affect rural communities who depend on forests for water, food, and medicine. If EUDR pushes for sustainable farming practices, strengthens land governance, and curbs illegal logging, it could become a tool for Africa’s environmental and economic sustainability alike.
Still, critics in Africa worry the law may unintentionally penalize smallholders. Unlike large commercial plantations that can adopt satellite mapping and supply chain audits, small-scale farmers often lack the resources or institutional backing to comply. A farmer in Ghana producing cocoa on two acres may find certification costs higher than their annual earnings. Without clear support mechanisms, there is a risk that compliance burdens fall unevenly, pushing vulnerable producers out of EU supply chains and consolidating trade in the hands of bigger players.
The one-year delay, therefore, is both a reprieve and a warning. It gives African governments and cooperatives time to expand digital registries, roll out farmer training, and negotiate technical assistance with the EU. But it also signals how fragile the regulation remains, with internal EU disagreements and system readiness undermining timelines. If Europe struggles with its IT backbone, the challenge for African states, many of which are already grappling with limited infrastructure, becomes doubly complex.
For Africa, the key lesson is that the future of commodity exports will be defined not just by volumes but by traceability, legality, and environmental stewardship. Countries like Ghana and Côte d’Ivoire are already experimenting with national traceability schemes; Kenya has advanced digital tools for its coffee cooperatives; and Tanzania is piloting satellite-based land registries. Scaling these innovations could help turn compliance into an opportunity, one that aligns with climate pledges, biodiversity protection, and the African Continental Free Trade Area’s promise of harmonized standards.
As the EU weighs another delay, the deeper issue for Africa is how to prepare for an inevitable tightening of environmental trade rules. Global markets are moving toward sustainability-linked access, and whether in cocoa, coffee, timber, or palm oil, Africa must not only react but position itself to compete. For now, the EUDR delay buys time. However, without deliberate investment in smallholder support, technology, and governance reforms, the law may widen inequalities rather than close the loop between sustainable production and sustainable trade.
Read also: World Bank Tribunal bars Niger from Uranium sales in landmark Somaïr mine dispute
