Summary Report of the Results of the Public Consultation

Summary report of the results of the Public Consultation

In the context of the Communication on stepping up EU action against deforestation and forest degradation

3rd May 2019

Contract details European Commission – DG Environment, Directorate F Analysis of data resulting from the open public consultation on the Communication on stepping up EU Action against Deforestation and Forest Degradation (Ref. Ares (2018) 6629045) under framework contract No. ENV.F.1./FRA/2014/0063

Work carried out by

In association with:

Authors Koen Rademaekers (Trinomics) Matthew Smith (Trinomics) William Keeling (Trinomics) Andreea Beznea (Trinomics) Dr Eric Arets (Wageningen University & Research) Carlos Hinojosa (Technopolis)

Date Rotterdam, 3rd May 2019

Disclaimer The information and views set out in this study are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use which may be made of the information contained therein.

CONTENTS

1 Analytical approach...... 4 1.1 Introduction ...... 4 1.2 Target group, timing and structure of the OPC ...... 4 1.3 Method of analysis ...... 4 1.4 Survey feedback...... 5 2 Results ...... 6 2.1 Profile of respondents ...... 6 2.2 Perceptions regarding the role of forests and the problem of deforestation and forest degradation ...... 17 2.3 How to address the problem of deforestation and forest degradation ...... 23 2.4 [Q14] Other comments ...... 37 2.5 Attachments to the OPC ...... 43 2.6 Submissions to the Roadmap ...... 47 3 Conclusions and recommendations ...... 51 Annex A: OPC questionnaire transcript ...... 53 Annex B: Question 13 tables ...... 65

1 Analytical approach

1.1 Introduction

This report provides an analysis of the responses received to the Open Public Consultation (OPC) on ‘Stepping up EU Action against Deforestation and Forest Degradation’, organised in the context of the development of an EU initiative on deforestation and forest degradation. The OPC aimed to gather insights on a comprehensive EU approach to combatting deforestation, protecting forests and promoting sustainable supply chains. The report is structured in the same way as the OPC itself. In addition to the analysis of the OPC responses, this report also provides a summary of the documents supplied as attachments to the OPC, as well as of the reponses to the Roadmap consultation on the same initiative, held prior to the OPC.

1.2 Target group, timing and structure of the OPC

All interested citizens and organisations were invited to respond to the OPC. To facilitate this, it was possible to contribute to the survey in any of the 23 EU languages. The consultation was open for six weeks from January 14th to February 25th, 2019.

The OPC consisted of a questionnaire of up to 37 questions (varying depending on the stakeholder type) uploaded on the EUSurvey platform1. The main body of the survey consisted of 13 questions, with 12 sub-questions. Most questions were closed questions presented as multiple-choice or multiple-answer questions (i.e. multiple-choice questions where multiple answers were possible), as well as an open ‘other’ field to be filled in optionally by the respondent. The final question was an open-ended question.2 A transcript of the survey can be found in Annex A of this report.

1.3 Method of analysis

The full dataset resulting from the OPC contains the results from 955 responses. Two cases of coordinated responses were detected. The cases were identified based on respondents with identical or close to identical answers across all questions, and particularly open questions; and consisted of 22 and 13 respondents each, with a strong overlap between the two groups based on direct or indirect links to the same international NGO. The responses were not considered to have a significant influence on the results and have therefore been incorporated into the overall analysis.

The results were quantitatively analysed. For each question, the number of respondents (n) is indicated as (n=x). The number of respondents is also expressed as a percentage of the total. In some cases, these percentages do not add up to 100% given that the numbers have been rounded to the nearest whole number. For a large share of questions, an additional cross-analysis has been done to compare responses between different questions. In particular, certain answers have been correlated with the level of perceived severity of the problem of deforestation and forest degradation (i.e. Q6 of the OPC) and with the stakeholder type (as defined in Q1). Examples of such cross-analyses can be found in sections 2.1 to 2.3.

1 https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-6516782/public-consultation_en 2 A question that is designed to encourage a full, meaningful answer using the subject's own knowledge.

Respondents could add any further information or suggestions they wished in an open question at the end of the survey as “Final remarks”. A total of 356 responses were submitted to this question, which have been analysed separately. Out of the 16 languages used by respondents in total, 15 were used in the open responses. A machine translation of all responses was therefore a necessary preliminary step before the analysis. Due to the relatively low frequency of open responses, a qualitative approach was taken to review the open responses. Each reponse was analysed separately and categorised based on the main themes presented. This was also complemented by a quantitative approach, based on the grouping and analysis of key themes that have been identified throughout the analysis of the open responses presented in section 2.4.

Finally, respondents could submit relevant files or position papers as attachments to the OPC. A total of 97 attachments were received. These are analysed in section 2.5.

1.4 Survey feedback

Feedback on the survey itself was also received from 14 respondents. The main view was that it was difficult to differentiate the relative importance (e.g. very important or important) of different options given the overall importance of all issues. One suggestion was that respondents could have been asked to prioritise (number) the options to more clearly elaborate on this point. Other stakeholders had difficulties with the language or translations of the survey. Another respondent noted that the survey was problematic in its grouping of deforestation and forest degradation issues, which are quite different in many ways and should therefore be dealt with separately.

2 Results

2.1 Profile of respondents

Key Messages  Overall, 955 responses were received, 869 from EU-based respondents and 86 from non- EU respondents.  EU citizens were the main respondent type (n=580, 61%), and significant numbers of NGO (n=102, 11%) and business organisation/company responses (n=100, 10%) were also received.  Respondents were most interested in the environment (n=506, 53%), climate change (n=415, 43%), nature (n=307, 32%), forestry/timber (n=236, 25%) and agriculture (n=179, 19%).  Respondents identified Palm Oil (n=575, 60%), Wood (n=433, 45%) and Meat (n=369, 39%) as the most important Forest Risk Commodities.

2.1.1 Country of origin The highest number of respondents indicated their country of origin as Germany, France, Poland, Belgium and Italy. Out of the Belgian respondents (n=77), 49% (n=38) consisted of companies, business organisations, business associations, environmental organisations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), reflecting the concentration of these organisations in Brussels

In addition to the EU respondents, there were 86 respondents originating from outside the EU. Table 2-1 shows the geographic distribution of respondents in the survey. However, all further analysis has been done on a collective basis, or on the basis of stakeholder groups, given that the purpose of the OPC is to look at potential actions to tackle deforestation and forest degradation. All responses, no matter their geographic origin, have been treated equally. Different perspectives are captured through stakeholder group level analysis.

Table 2-1 Country of origin of respondents (n=955); Note: EU countries are coloured dark blue

Country Frequency Percentage Country Frequency Percentage Germany 135 14.1% Nigeria 3 0.3% France 117 12.3% Cameroon 3 0.3% Poland 99 10.4% Luxembourg 2 0.2% Belgium 77 8.1% Australia 2 0.2% Italy 69 7.2% Slovenia 2 0.2% Netherlands 48 5.0% French Guiana 2 0.2% United Kingdom 48 5.0% Thailand 2 0.2% Portugal 43 4.5% Norway 2 0.2% Spain 41 4.3% Canada 2 0.2% Romania 40 4.2% Indonesia 2 0.2% Lithuania 34 3.6% Peru 2 0.2% Austria 23 2.4% Estonia 1 0.1% Czech Republic 22 2.3% Mali 1 0.1% United States 18 1.9% Malta 1 0.1% Bulgaria 13 1.4% Singapore 1 0.1% Croatia 10 1.0% Mexico 1 0.1% Finland 8 0.8% South Africa 1 0.1% Switzerland 8 0.8% French Polynesia 1 0.1% Honduras 8 0.8% Monaco 1 0.1% Ireland 8 0.8% Belarus 1 0.1% Sweden 6 0.6% Nepal 1 0.1% Hungary 6 0.6% Cambodia 1 0.1% Denmark 6 0.6% India 1 0.1% Brazil 5 0.5% Israel 1 0.1% United States Minor Ghana 4 0.4% Outlying Islands 1 0.1% Colombia 4 0.4% Jordan 1 0.1% Cyprus 4 0.4% Côte d’Ivoire 1 0.1% Malaysia 3 0.3% Russia 1 0.1% Democratic Republic of Slovakia 3 0.3% the Congo 1 0.1% Greece 3 0.3% Total 955 100%

2.1.2 [Q1] Type of stakeholders and field of activity or interest The first question provided a categorisation of stakeholders that could participate in the OPC in order to group them. It’s important to note that there is a wide variation between the number of respondents in each stakeholder group, ranging from 3 to 580. Therefore, all further analysis, especially cross- analysis per stakeholder group, should be interpreted keeping in mind the sample size of each group of stakeholders. The latter is always specified as (n=x).

In the context of this OPC, foresters and farmers were distinguished from citizens; so foresters, farmers, and citizens (both EU and non-EU) are all separate categories of stakeholders. The data also shows that no “non-EU farmers” took part in the OPC, therefore this category of stakeholders has been excluded from all analysis. All reference made to ‘farmers’ in this report refers to ‘EU’ farmers only. Furthermore, the category “business associations” (n=35) have been included in the “company/business organisation” group, and “consumer organisations” (n=2), as well as “trade unions” (n=1) have been grouped together with the “non-governmental organisation” (NGO) category. All further stakeholder- level analysis is done on the basis of the stakeholder groups shown in Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1 shows that more than 60% (n=580) of all respondents replied in their capacity as “EU citizens”, followed by “non-governmental organisations” with 10.7% (n=102), “company/business organisations” with 10.5% (n=100), and “foresters” with 4.4% (n=42).

Figure 2-1 [Q1] "Please specify in what capacity you are replying to this questionnaire." (n=955)

The most frequently cited fields of activity or interest that respondents could indicate are: environment (53%; n=506), climate change (43%; n=415) and nature (32%; n=307), followed by forestry/timber, agriculture, and education/science, as shown in Figure 2-2. Respondents could indicate up to three fields of activity or interest, therefore Figure 2-2 illustrates the level of popularity of each of the given fields amongst all respondents. Only approximately 3% (n=33) of respondents indicated “other” fields of activity or interest. They predominantly cited pulp and paper (0.4%; n=4), services (including public administration) (0.4%; n=4), tourism (0.3%; n=3), financial activities (0.2%; n=2), entertainment (0.2%; n=2), ICT (0.2%; n=2), land and property rights (0.2%; n=2), and sustainability (0.2% n=2), amongst 18 other fields of activity or interest (each being mentioned only once, i.e. each representing approximately 0.1% of all respondents).

Figure 2-2 [Q1.2] "Please indicate your main field of activity or interest." (n=955) – number of votes per entry

Note: Respondents could select up to three fields of activity or interest.

A break-down of fields of activity or interest per stakeholder group (as defined in Q1) is shown in Table 2-2. Companies and business organisations, foresters, and academic and research institutions selected “forestry/timber” in a large proportion; farmers selected “agriculture”; and consumer organisations (n=2) focused equally on “agriculture”, “climate change”, “development cooperation” and “forestry/timber”. The remaining stakeholder groups predominantly pointed to “environment” as their main field of activity or interest.

Table 2-2 Main field of activity or interest [Q1.2] per stakeholder group (n=955) Company/ business Academic/ Environ- organisa- research Non-EU mental Public tion EU farmer Forester institution EU citizen citizen organisa- NGO authority (10.5%; (1.2%; (4.4%; (3.9%; (60.7%; (2.1%; tion (4.1% ; (10.7%; (2.2%; Other n=100) n=11) n=42) n=37) n=580) n=20) n=39) n=102) n=21) (0.3%; n=3) Agriculture 30 10 4 11 75 5 13 25 5 1 Climate change 25 3 15 16 274 14 19 38 9 2 Consumption 14 0 0 2 48 1 2 15 0 0 Development cooperation 2 0 6 4 44 2 3 14 2 1 Education/science 1 3 2 4 102 2 4 6 1 0 Energy 13 1 1 1 45 1 0 4 0 0 Environment 27 5 20 18 317 15 29 61 14 0 Food/beverage industry 24 0 1 1 21 0 0 0 1 0 Forestry/timber 37 2 36 22 85 3 10 29 12 0 Health 2 1 0 0 57 2 1 1 0 0 Human rights/labour rights 10 1 2 3 61 2 4 19 0 0 Indigenous peoples 3 0 0 1 22 2 3 17 0 0 Investment and finance 4 0 1 1 13 2 0 2 0 1 Media and communication 1 0 0 0 30 2 1 0 0 0 Mining/extractive industry 0 0 0 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 Nature 6 5 10 5 216 4 18 35 8 0 Trade 20 0 1 3 14 0 0 7 0 1 Transport 6 0 0 0 10 0 2 0 0 0 Urban planning and development 1 0 1 1 30 0 1 2 0 0 Other 7 0 0 1 24 0 1 0 0 0 Note: Respondents could select up to three fields of activity or interest. The percentages in Table 2-2 therefore indicate the percentage of respondents in each stakeholder group that cited each of the fields of activity/interest.

Companies/business organisations, farmers and foresters from Q1 that indicated agricultural or food/beverage industry activities as their field of interest in Q1.1 (n=54) were asked a specific follow- up question about the type of agricultural activities they are engaged in (e.g. production, import, export of agricultural commodities). Out of the 54 respondents that answered Q1.3.1, most of them indicated their involvement in the sale of final products based on agricultural commodities or the production of products derived from agricultural commodities (41% or n=22 and 39% or n=21, respectively) (Figure 2-3). Out of the 24% (n=13) that reported being engaged in “other” activities, the answers involved the following activities: nature conservation and landscape management (5%3; n=3), gardening-related activities (4%; n=2), representatives of the bioenergy sector (4%; n=2), production of chocolate (2%; n=1), finance of the agricultural sector (2%; n=1), forest policy (2%; n=1), promotion of palm oil and palm oil products (2%; n=1), representatives of the food industry (2%; n=1), and sustainability certification (2%; n=1).

Figure 2-3 [Q1.3.1] "What type of agricultural activities are you primarily engaged in?" (n=54)

Note: Respondents could select multiple entries. Only respondents that belonged to the following stakeholder groups in Q1 could respond to this question: business association, company/business organisation, EU farmer, non- EU farmer and forester; and only if they also indicated “agriculture” or “food/beverage industry” as their main field of activity or interest in Q1.1 [n=54].

Companies/business organisations, farmers and foresters from Q1 that indicated forestry/timber as their main field of activity or interest in Q1.1 were also asked more specifically about their type of engagement in forestry and timber activities. As shown in Figure 2-4, “other” forestry and timber activities (42%; n=31) were selected by most respondents. The activities cited by respondents were: forest ownership, management and/or research (16%4; n=12); advisory work (9%; n=7); manufacturing and/or retail of forest commodities and or products resulting from the use of forest commodities (7%; n=5); advocacy work (5%; n=4); and policy development work (3%; n=2)5. The production of products

3 Out of the 54 respondents that answered Q1.3.1. 4 Out of the 74 respondents that answered Q1.3.2. 5 Respondents could specify as many activities as they wanted, within a limit of 100 characters. Responses that were out of scope (e.g. not relevant to the question) have not been analysed.

derived from forest commodities and of forest commodities were the second and third most commonly cited activities (32% or n=24 and 31% or n=23, respectively).

Figure 2-4 [Q1.3.2] "What type of forestry and timber activities are you primarily engaged in?" (n=74)

Other 42%; 31

We produce products derived from forest 32%; 24 commodities

We produce forest commodities 31%; 23

We import forest commodities 24%; 18

We sell final products based on forest 24%; 18 commodities

We export forest commodities 19%; 14

We sell intermediate products based on 15%; 11 forest commodities

Note: Respondents could select multiple entries. Only respondents that belonged to the following stakeholder groups in Q1 could respond to this question: business association, company/business organisation, EU farmer, non- EU farmer and forester; and only if they also indicated in Q1.1 “forestry/timber” as their main field of activity or interest [total possible n=74].

Additionally, companies and business organisations, farmers and foresters that indicated mining/extractive industry as their main activity or field of interest were asked about their specific type of engagement in mining/extractive industry activities. Only one respondent provided a response to this question, stating that he/she is engaged in “other” mining and extractive industry activities. This respondent highlighted his/her interest in the threat of mining to agriculture, nature and homes.

In Q1.4, business associations in Q1 (n=33) were also asked what interests they respresented. As shown in Figure 2-5, 36% (n=12) of participating business associations represented the interests of producers, 30% (n=10) indicated being a business association representing the interests of buyers, while an additional 24% (n=9) of business associations stated that they represent the industry at large (Figure 2-5). Business associations that selected “other” (18%; n=7) consisted of representatives of the retail and manufacturing industries (of various forest commodities such as timber and coffee) (12%6; n=4) and software development (3%; n=1)7.

6 Out of the 33 respondents that answered Q1.4. 7 One respondent did not provide an answer in the open-response field.

Figure 2-5 [Q1.4] "Business associations: Please indicate which of the following statements best describes your current situation." (n=33)

We are a business association that 36%; 12 represents the interests of producers

We are a business association that 30%; 10 represents the interests of buyers

We are a business association that represents the interests of the industry 27%; 9 at large (producers, traders, consumers)

Other 21%; 7

Note: Only business associations could respond to this question and could select multiple entries.

2.1.3 [Q2] Interest in or familiarity with forest risk commodities Respondents were asked about their familiarity with or interest in a number of forest risk commodities8. An important share of respondents cited palm oil (60%; n=575) and wood (45%; n=433) as commodities that they are most familiar with or interested in (Figure 2-6), followed by meat (39%; n=369), soy (36%; n=340), wooden products (29%; n=274) and bio-diesel (27%; n=255). Rubber, maize, and other wood-based fuels received the least interest from respondents.

Figure 2-6 [Q2] "So-called ‘forest risk commodities’ are commodities whose production contribute significantly to tropical deforestation and forest degradation. Which of the following commodities are you and/or your organisation most familiar with and/or interested in?" (n=955)

Palm oil 60%; 575 Wood 45%; 433 Meat (including leather) 39%; 369 Soy 36%; 340 Wooden products 29%; 274 Bio-diesel 27%; 255 Paper 26%; 249 Cocoa 21%; 203 Coffee 20%; 193 Extractive materials 16%; 154 Charcoal 16%; 153 Wood pellets 16%; 153 Bioethanol 14%; 137 Pulp 14%; 130 Other wood-based fuels 10%; 92 Maize 9%; 88 Rubber (natural) 7%; 66 Other 7%; 64

Note: Respondents could select up to six forest risk commodities.

8 Forest risk commodities were described as agricultural and forest-based products whose extraction and production is often associated with deforestation and forest degradation.

Among the “other” forest risk commodities (7%; n=64)9, the most prevalent responses included non- timber forest products (NTFPs) (0.4%; n=4), ornamental plants/trees (0.3%; n=3), bio-based plastics (0.2%; n=2), and rice (0.2%; n=2)10.

2.1.4 [Q3] and [Q4] Information level and sources Figure 2-8 shows that overall, most respondents answered that they were “well informed” (40%; n=383) or “very well informed” (30%; n=287) about the problem of deforestation and forest degradation.

Figure 2-7 [Q3] "How well informed are you about the problem of deforestation and forest degradation?" (n=955)

Not well Not informed at all; 4; 1% informed; 40; 4%

Very well informed; 287; Somewhat 30% informed; 241; 25%

Well informed; 383; 40%

The most common sources of information regarding deforestation and forest degradation used by respondents included the internet (65%; n=623), books or scientific literature (57%; n=542) and professional contacts (47%; n=448) (Figure 2-8). “Other” sources included respondents’ personal or professional experience and/or (field) research (7%; n=64); information published by various NGOs (2%; n=21); and reports, statistics and/or similar informational material (including satellite monitoring and geospatial data) (1%; n=12).

9 Respondents could specify as many forest risk commodities as they wanted, within a limit of 100 characters. Responses that were out of scope (e.g. not relevant answers to the question) have not been analysed. 10 Certain forest risk commodities mentioned in the “other” category included options that were already presented in Q2: cocoa (n=1), coffee (n=1), because one respondent wanted to add two additional commodities to his/her list of six.

Figure 2-8 [Q4] "What are your main sources of information on deforestation and forest degradation?" (n=955)

The internet (other websites, blogs, forums, etc.) 65%; 623

Books or scientific literature 57%; 542

Professional contacts 47%; 448

Online social networks 39%; 369

Events (conferences, fairs, exhibitions, festivals, etc.) 38%; 366

Films and documentaries on television 35%; 334

National newspapers 34%; 328

Colleagues 26%; 250

Brochures or information materials 20%; 187

Television news 17%; 159

Magazines 13%; 123

Regional or local newspapers 12%; 110

The radio 11%; 103

Other 11%; 102

Museums, national or regional parks 9%; 90

Family, friends or neighbours 9%; 90

Note: Respondents could select multiple entries.

Table 2-3 and Table 2-4 below show the distribution of answers across stakeholder types for Q3 (level of information) and Q4 (sources of information), respectively. Most stakeholder groups reported being “very well informed” about deforestation and forest degradation, with an important share of citizens, farmers and public authorities being, to a larger extent being only “well informed”. The most popular sources of information amongst companies and business organisations, NGOs and public authorities proved to be professional contacts. Meanwhile, for citizens (both EU and non-EU), the most important sources of information were reported to be the internet. Films and documentaries, online social networks, and national newspapers were also important sources of information for citizens in comparison to other stakeholder groups.

Table 2-3 Level of information [Q3] according to stakeholder type [Q1] (n=955) Company/ Academic/ Environ- business research Non-EU mental Public organisa- EU farmer Forester institution EU citizen citizen organisa- NGO authority tion (10.5%; (1.2%; (4.4%; (3.9%; (60.7%; (2.1%; tion (4.1% ; (10.7%; (2.2%; Other n=100) n=11) n=42) n=37) n=580) n=20) n=39) n=102) n=21) (0.3%; n=3) Very well informed 50 3 18 19 92 8 18 71 5 3 Well informed 46 5 18 12 238 6 19 25 14 0 Somewhat informed 4 3 4 6 211 4 1 6 2 0 Not well informed 0 0 2 0 36 1 1 0 0 0 Not informed at all 0 0 0 0 3 1 0 0 0 0

Table 2-4 Source of information [Q4] according to stakeholder type [Q1] (n=955) Company/ Academic/ Environ- business research Non-EU mental Public organisa- EU farmer Forester institution EU citizen citizen organisa- NGO authority tion (10.5%; (1.2%; (4.4%; (3.9%; (60.7%; (2.1%; tion (4.1% ; (10.7%; (2.2%; Other n=100) n=11) n=42) n=37) n=580) n=20) n=39) n=102) n=21) (0.3%; n=3) National newspapers 28 3 7 6 236 8 6 26 8 0 Regional or local newspapers 8 3 0 5 77 3 1 10 3 0 Magazines 17 3 2 4 84 2 1 7 3 0 Television news 17 4 5 3 113 4 3 6 4 0 The radio 6 2 2 2 83 1 0 5 2 0 Films and documentaries on television 20 5 6 6 275 7 7 4 4 0 Family, friends or neighbours 3 2 0 0 79 0 1 4 1 0 Colleagues 45 2 16 14 90 6 11 56 9 1 Professional contacts 85 6 27 22 169 10 25 84 17 3 Brochures or information materials 27 3 9 8 110 3 4 16 7 0 Books or scientific literature 58 6 27 31 287 11 30 74 16 2 Events (conferences, fairs, exhibitions, festivals, etc.) 76 3 20 20 159 10 16 45 14 3 Museums, national or regional parks 4 2 0 1 77 0 2 2 2 0 Online social networks 21 11 10 8 273 4 11 26 4 1 The internet (other websites, blogs, forums, etc.) 65 8 25 19 412 11 20 50 12 1 Other 14 1 5 4 40 3 7 27 1 0 Note: Respondents could select multiple sources of information. The percentages in Table 2-4 therefore indicate the percentage of respondents in each stakeholder group that cited each entry.

2.2 Perceptions regarding the role of forests and the problem of deforestation and forest degradation

Key Messages  Overall, the problem of deforestation and forest degradation was qualified as “alarming”, but the degrees of perceived severity of the problem varied to some extent across different stakeholder groups. For instance, companies finding the problem less alarming than groups.  Indirect drivers of deforestation and forest degradation were generally perceived to be more important than direct drivers.  The expansion of large-scale commercial agriculture was estimated to be the most impactful direct driver of deforestation and forest degradation, while weak forest protection law and adequate enforcement was considered to be the most impactful indirect driver of deforestation and forest degradation.  Respondents believed that deforestation and forest degradation should be addressed primarily for the purpose of conserving ecosystems and biodiversity, followed by combating climate change, strengthening efforts towards sustainable development and ensuring sustainable use of natural resources, and protecting the rights and livelihoods of forest communities and indigenous peoples.  The role of forests in natural systems was considered “indispensable” by 94% of respondents, which may largely explain the previous bullet point. In contrast to 44% considering the importance of forests for our food security as “indispensable”.

2.2.1 [Q5] The importance of forests An important share of respondents agreed that the various roles of forests listed in Q5 were “indispensable” (Figure 2-9). Respondents almost unanimously (94%; n=902) considered the role forests play in natural systems as their most indispensable feature, followed by their importance for future

generations (90%; n=861), for human well being (90%; n=857) and for absorbing CO2 and preventing global warming (86%; n=826). As regards the role of forests for food security, less than half of respondents considered this as “indispensable” (44%; n=417), while 33% (n=311) considered it as “important”.

Figure 2-9 [Q5] "In your opinion, how important..." (n=955)

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 2% or less of the sample.

2.2.2 [Q6] The problem of deforestation and forest degradation Respondents overwhelmingly considered the problem of deforestation and forest degradation as alarming (82%; n=787) or serious (16%; n=154), as shown in Figure 2-10. When looking at the split per stakeholder group, Figure 2-11 shows that 48% (n=48) of company/business organisations considered the problem of deforestation and forest degradation to be “alarming” – representing the lowest rate of all stakeholder groups. “Other” stakeholders (0.3%; n=3), consisting of two intergovernmental organisations and one climate change consultant, unanimously considered the problem “alarming” (100%).

Figure 2-10 [Q6] "In your opinion, the problem of deforestation and forest degradation is:" (n=955)

Negligible; 1; 0% Moderate; I don't 8; 1% know/no Serious; opinion; 5; 1% 154; 16%

Alarming; 787; 82%

Figure 2-11 Perceived severity of the problem of deforestation and forest degradation [Q6] according to stakeholder type [Q1] (n=955)

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 2% or less of the sample.

2.2.3 [Q7a] The main direct drivers of deforestation and forest degradation Stakeholders were also asked about the importance of several direct drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. Figure 2-12 shows that more than half of respondents considered that the expansion of large-scale commercial agriculture (79%11; n=758), industrial logging/industrial forest products extraction (55%; n=523) and illegal logging (53%; n=503) are very important direct drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. This aligns with the top direct drivers of deforestation and forest degradation, in comparison to the lowest scored direct drivers of deforestation, i.e. expansion of small- scale and subsistence agriculture (11%; n=105), natural causes (19%; n=185), and fuelwood extraction (23%; n=216), in addition to “other” (16%; n=152). Out of the respondents that stated that “other” direct drivers were “very important” (16%; n=152), the drivers that were predominantly mentioned fall under the following categories12: intensive farming and/or breeding (2%; n=20); social values, lack of information and/or wrong (economic) incentives (2%; n=15); illegal activity, corruption and/or collusion (1%; n=14); weak governance, poor forest management and/or insufficient legislation (1%; n=11); land governance issues (1%; n=11); poverty and the subsistence economy (0.9%; n=9); the power and interests of the private sector and consumerism (0.8%; n=8); agricultural sector activities and dynamics (0.6%; n=6); and, demographic/social trends (0.5%; n=5). Many of these already referenced indirect drivers which are the subject of the following question,Q7b.

Figure 2-12 [Q7a] "Deforestation and forest degradation are caused by several drivers. Please indicate how important you consider the following direct drivers." (n=955)13

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 3% or less of the sample.

11 Percentage of respondents indicating “very important”. 12 Respondents could specify as many drivers as they wanted within, a limit of 100 characters. Responses that were out of scope (not relevant to answering the question) have not been analysed. 13 All options were left to the interpretation of respondents. However, it may be useful to note that ‘forest fires’ (included in the option “natural causes”) may sometimes result from clearance and/or illegal logging. Such fires might also go underground (e.g. in peat), appear to be extinguished but later resurface elsewhere, thereby being recorded as ‘natural’. This information was not presented to respondents, therefore it is unclear how this option was interpreted in Q7a.

2.2.4 [Q7b] The main indirect drivers of deforestation and forest degradation The level of importance of a number of indirect drivers of deforestation and forest degradation are shown in Figure 2-13. The top three indirect drivers recognised on average by respondents were: (1) weak forest protection law and adequate enforcement with 73%14 (n=700), (2) weak governance of land and weak enforcement of law with 70% (n=668) and (3) high consumption levels of forest risk commodities with 59% (n=563). The indirect drivers that received the lowest score were: low productivity at farm, plot or plantation level or in the processing chains (14%; n=132), low resource efficiency resulting in waste and loss (24%; n=229), and high dependence of countries on agriculture and forest sector (29%; n=274), in addition to “other” (18%; n=171) (see below).

Respondents that stated that “other” indirect drivers were “very important” (18%; n=171), predominantly mentioned the following categories of drivers15: illegal activity, corruption and/or collusion (3%; n=31); poverty and the subsistence economy (2%; n=23); lack of adequate policies (2%; n=23); social values, lack of information and/or wrong economic incentives (2%; n=20); weak governance, poor forest management and/or insufficient legislation (2%; n=18); the biomass/bioenergy economy (2%; n=15); and, the power and interests of the private sector and consumerism (2%; n=15).

14 Percentage of respondents indicating “very important”. 15 Respondents could specify as many drivers as they wanted, within a limit of 100 characters. Responses that were out of scope have not been analysed.

Figure 2-13 [Q7b] "Please rate the following indirect drivers of deforestation and forest degradation." (n=955)

Weak forest protection law and adequate enforcement 73% 21%

Weak governance of land and weak enforcement of law 70% 22% 5%

High consumption levels of forest risk commodities 59% 24% 11% 4%

Poor forest/land management practices 52% 33% 10%

Lack of public policies promoting commodities produced with 52% 31% 12% 4% less impact on forests Increasing demand for forest risk commodities due to 49% 34% 11% population growth and increasing standards of living Insufficient finance for investments in sustainable agriculture 46% 31% 13% 6% in producer countries Lack of private sector policies, commitments and 46% 30% 15% 4%4% engagements in deforestation-free supply chains Low consumer awareness of risks of deforestation related to 46% 30% 18% 4% commodities Lack of incentives for private sector to source commodities 45% 33% 15% 4% produced with less impact on forests

Climate change 42% 27% 19% 6% 6%

High consumer country dependency on feed imports 40% 29% 17% 5% 10%

Trade agreements 34% 35% 17% 4% 11%

Policy driven increase in demand for commodities 33% 31% 19% 4% 13%

Low social and economic development of large part of local 32% 37% 18% 5% 8% population in producer countries

Finance and investment flows from the EU and other countries 32% 33% 17% 5% 14%

High dependence of countries on agriculture and forest sector 29% 38% 21% 6% 7%

Low resource efficiency resulting in waste and loss 24% 36% 25% 6% 9%

Other 18% 76%

Low productivity at farm, plot or plantation level or in the 14% 33% 29% 12% 13% processing chains

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Very important Important Relatively important Not important I don't know/no opinion

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 3% or less of the sample.

2.2.5 [Q8] The main reasons to address deforestation and forest degradation The last question of this section asked respondents to select the main reasons to address deforestation and forest degradation. Almost all respondents (92%; n=631) selected “protecting biodiversity, ecosystems and their services” as one of the main reasons to address deforestation and forest

degradation, followed by “mitigating and adapting to climate change” (80%; n=763) (Figure 2-14). Some of the reasons respondents considered to be relatively less important were “ensuring good governance of land and addressing corruption” (50%; n=479) and “reducing investment and trade risks, fostering business opportunities, and/or securing long-term commodity supply” (25%; n=240). Out of the respondents that selected “other” reasons (7%; n=66), the most cited answers fall under the following categories16: the EU has a responsibility to fulfil international and regional commitments (2.4%; n=23); to improve the sustainability of supply chains (including the long-term supply of commodities) (0.6%; n=6); to reduce greenhouse gas emissions (0.3%; n=3); to ensure the wellbeing of future generations (0.3%; n=3); to prevent environmental migration (0.1%; n=1); to ensure the good governance of land and address corruption (0.1%; n=1); and, to inform (0.1%; n=1). Some respondents (2%; n=15) also reiterated the importance of protecting biodiversity, ecosystems and their services, which were sometimes referred to as “cultural heritage”.

Figure 2-14 [Q8] "In your opinion, what are the main reasons to address deforestation and forest degradation?" (n=955)

Protecting biodiversity, ecosystems and their services 92%; 879

Mitigating and adapting to climate change 80%; 763

Strengthening efforts towards sustainable development 72%; 692 and ensuring sustainable use of natural resources

Protecting the rights and livelihoods of forest communities 66%; 631 and indigenous peoples

Ensuring good governance of land and addressing 50%; 479 corruption Reducing investment and trade risks, fostering business opportunities, and/or securing long-term commodity 25%; 240 supply

Other 7%; 66

Note: Respondents could select multiple entries.

16 Respondents could specify as many reasons as they wanted, within a limit of 200 characters. Responses that were out of scope have not been analysed.

2.3 How to address the problem of deforestation and forest degradation

Key Messages  On average, higher levels of jurisdiction (i.e. international, EU, national) are seen by respondents as pivotal in tackling deforestation and forest degradation.  Over 70% of respondents were of the opinion that the current EU policy and legislative framework against deforestation and forest degradation was inadequate. o More than 60% considered that the EU should develop a coherent framework, including measures that support and enhance the coherence of existing commitments and initiatives by Member States, civil society and the private sector. o Other options to step up EU action suggested by respondents included to use more binding regulatory measures (as opposed to voluntary mechanisms), add more market-based instruments (e.g. taxes on forest commodities), include a wider range of stakeholders in policy discussions, as well as using the United Nations framework on reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation (REDD) mechanisms.  The most popular actions for the EU to take were supply-side actions, in comparison to demand-side actions, finance and investment actions, mainstreaming actions and actions on strengthening international cooperation. The latter was considered to be the least important type of action.  The forest-risk commodities (FRCs) considered as most important to address in policies and legislation were: palm oil, meat (including leather), soy and biodiesel. Rubber, maize and coffee were at the bottom of the priority list, although around 8% of respondents considered it important to employ a cross-commodity approach targeting all FRCs.  Overall, respondents considered it very important to: o (1) make sure the EU and EIB funding do not contribute, even indirectly, to deforestation; o (2) include forestry issues within trade agreements of tropical countries; o (3) promote better forest law protection and land use planning, governance and law enforcement; o (4) support forest policies, sustainable forest management, better protection, conservation and restoration of ecosystems; and, o (5) address EU consumption of unsustainably produced forest risk commodities as well as stregthen forest monitoring and improving transparency and traceability in supply

This section deals with questions 9 to 13 of the OPC, which were part of Section III of the survey (see Annex A). These questions were designed to capture participants’ opinions on how to address the problem of deforestation and forest degradation.

2.3.1 [Q9] Levels at which to step up action When asked how much efforts to address deforestation and forest degradation action should be stepped up at various governance levels, most respondents noted that all levels of governance (i.e. international, EU, national, regional and local) required ‘considerable’ additional effort (see Figure

2-15). Nevertheless, respondents perceive a need for more action to be required at the international (88%17; n=839), EU (84%; n=804) and national levels (79%; n=759), compared to regional and local levels. This is clear from the consecutive descending order in which the percentage of respondents that answered “considerably” decreases from international (88%; n=839) to local level (62%; n=594).

Figure 2-15 [Q9] "In your opinion, how much should the efforts to address deforestation and forest degradation be stepped up at the following levels?" (n=955)

International 88% 10%

EU 84% 14%

National 79% 17%

Regional 62% 29% 5%4%

Local 62% 28% 5% 5%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Considerably Somewhat Not at all I don't know/no opinion

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 2% or less of the sample.

2.3.2 [Q10] Adequacy of the current EU framework The respondents were subsequently asked whether the current EU framework was adequate to address the issues of deforestation and forest degradation. If respondents replied “no” they had the option to provide their opinion on several possible options for stepping up EU action. As demonstrated in Figure 2-17, a large majority of respondents (73%; n=700) consider the current EU framework for tackling deforestation and forest degradation to be inadequate. It’s interesting to note that approximately 18% of respondents (n=171) did not know how to answer this question or had no opinion. This figure may imply a lack of understanding or awareness of the current EU framework.

Out of the 700 respondents that considered the current EU framework to be inadequate, 62% (n=431) were EU citizens, 13% (n=88) were NGOs, 8% (n=58) were companies/ business organisations, 5% (n=34) were environmental organisations, 4% (n=29) were academic/research institutions, 3% (n=21) were foresters, 2% (n=15) were non-EU citizens, and another 2% were public authorities (n=11). Out of the 83 respondents that considered the current EU framework to be adequate, the top three stakeholder groups were companies/business organisations (29%; n=24), EU citizens (28%; n=23), and foresters (14%; n=12). A handful of other respondents also considered the framework to be adequate, namely NGOs (11%; n=9), academic/research institutions (7%; n=6), public authorities (7%; n=6), environmental organisations (2%; n=2) and one non-EU citizen (1%). Only 1% (n=9) of respondents having considered the current EU framework inadequate were EU farmers. Overall, at least 50% of all stakeholder groups agreed that the current framework was inadequate, with foresters, companies/business organisations

17 Percentage of respondents indicating “considerably”.

and public authorities leaning towards ‘adequate’ more than other stakeholder groups. These stakeholder groups, as well as citizens (both EU and non-EU) and farmers, were also more likely to answer “I don’t know/no opinion” in comparison to other groups. Consequently, the groups that were most convinced of the inadequacy of the current EU framework were NGOs, environmental organisations and academics/research institutions (in addition to ‘other’ stakeholders).

Figure 2-16 Correlation of [Q10] ‘In your opinion, is the current EU policy and legislative framework against deforestation and forest degradation adequate? And [Q10.1] In your opinion, what would be the best option to step up EU action against deforestation and forest degradation (n=955)

From those that perceived the current EU framework as inadequate, most respondents (61%, n=424) viewed the development of a new coherent framework to address the issues of deforestation and forest degradation as the best option for stepping up EU action. The next largest group of respondents (19%, n=13518) answered “other” and were able to provide an open response to what they perceived to be the best option for stepping up EU action19. In addition, 89 respondents (13%) thought the EU should explore new initiatives building on existing policies, 42 (6%) thought the EU should better implement existing policy, and 10 (1.4%) did not know/had no opinion.

Out of the respondents that selected “other”, the most common answers included the following categories: invest in/support due diligence and improve the sustainability of supply chains/trade (8%20;

18 Out of the 700 respondents that considered the current EU framework inadequate. 19 Respondents could specify as many options as they wanted, within a limit of 200 characters. Responses that were out of scope have not been analysed. 20 Out of the 700 respondents that considered the current EU framework inadequate.

n=55); impose more (obligatory) policy measures/regulation/legislation (7%; n=46); internalise negative externalities through pricing mechanisms (1%; n=8) (e.g. taxing forest-risk commodities); alter (1%; n=7), better implement (1%; n=6) or improve the coherence of (0.4%; n=3) existing policy measures/regulation/legislation (e.g. EU-level enforcement, or obligatory MS reforestation targets); increase policy focus on biodiversity and nature conservation (1%; n=6); ban the import of certain forest risk commodities (1%; n=6); raise awareness/education about deforestation and forest degradation amongst citizens and involve civil society organisations (CSOs)/non-governmental organisations (NGOs) more (1%; n=4); incorporate REDD mechanisms/principles into policy-making (1%; n=4); provide more financial assistance to producer countries (0.4%; n=4); increase research and development (R&D) funding (0.3%; n=2); and, improve the relationship between exporting and importing countries (0.1%; n=1).

In some cases, respondents expanded on the answers that were presented to them in the “other” field. For example, when talking about altering existing policies, certain respondents, particularly companies/business organisations, mentioned expanding the scope of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR). Other stakeholders mentioned reforming the EU bioenergy policy. When talking about improving implementation of existing policies, respondents referred to eliminating loopholes in existing legislation or removing industry influence from existing policies.

When asked about the best options to step up EU action in the field, the overall preferred option was to develop an initiative to create a coherent framework to address deforestation and forest degradation. Looking at the split per respondent type, non-EU citizens (73% of 1521), EU citizens (69% of 431), and foresters (67% of 21) were more likely to support the development of a coherent framework than the overall average (see Figure 2-17). Public authority stakeholders (27% of 11) and foresters (14% of 21) were the most notable stakeholder categories to select better implementation as the best option to step up EU action. Finally, NGOs were by far the most likely group to suggest “other” options through the open reponses (63% of 88). In contrast, EU citizens were respectively less well represented, making up only 34% of “other” reponses (compared to their overall survey representation of 60.7%).

21 These shares presented in this paragraph as ‘xx% out of xx’ are percentages out of the respondents, in a given stakeholder category, that considered the current EU framework inadequate.

Figure 2-17 Options to step up EU action [Q10.1] according to stakeholder type [Q1] (n=700)

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 2% or less of the sample. 2.3.3 [Q11] Forest risk commodities to address Respondents were subsequently asked which forest-risk commodities should be addressed by a potential future EU initiative against deforestation and forest degradation. For this question, respondents were able to select up to six forest-risk commodities they considered to be the most relevant. The overall responses to this question were generally in line with the responses to Q2 regarding respondents’ main interests in terms of forest risk commodities. In other words, respondents generally expressed their wish to see actions taken at the EU level on forest risk commodities that they indicated to be most interested in in Q2. However, wood and wooden products ranked lower in Q11 than in Q2 and Q7a, while meat (and leather products), soy and bio-diesel moved up the ranking.

Figure 2-19 shows that the commodities believed to be most crucial to future EU initiatives were by far palm oil (80%; n=767), meat (and leather products) (54%; n=518), soy (52%; n=496), biodiesel (45%; n=429), and wood (34%; n=321). Rubber, maize, and coffee are on the bottom of the priority list with n=87 (9%), 123 (13%), and 126 (13%), respectively. If all wood-based commodities (i.e. wood, wooden products, charcoal, paper, pulp, and wooden pellets) were grouped together, these would take second place with 627 respondents (66%) having selected at least one of the listed wood-based commodities.

Figure 2-18 [Q11] "In your opinion, which of the following forest risk commodities should be addressed by an EU initiative against deforestation and/or forest degradation?" (n=955)

Palm oil 80%; 767

Meat (including leather) 54%; 518

Soy 52%; 496

Bio-diesel 45%; 429

Wood 34%; 321

Extractive materials 29%; 276

Bioethanol 28%; 271

Wooden products 22%; 213

Charcoal 22%; 211

Paper 19%; 178

Cocoa 17%; 167

Other wood-based fuels 15%; 146

Pulp 14%; 135

Wood pellets 14%; 130

Coffee 13%; 126

Maize 13%; 123

Other 12%; 118

Rubber (natural) 9%; 87

Note: Respondents could select up to six forest risk commodities.

“Other” forest-risk commodities (12%; n=118) that should be targeted by future policies according to respondents include: bio-energy related products, animal feed, tea, viscose, dairy, timber, and wood chips (each being mentioned once)22. Additionally, many respondents (8%; n=81) having replied to the “other” section of this question stated that the EU should adopt a cross-commodity approach covering all forest-risk commodities listed in Q11.

2.3.4 [Q12] Potential of EU policy areas to address deforestation and forest degradation The survey asked respondents which EU policy areas they consider to have the strongest potential to better address deforestation and forest degradation. As shown in Figure 2-19, the EU policy areas that were perceived as “very important” by most respondents were environment (70%; n=668), agriculture (69%; n=657), and climate (67%; n=641). Most other policy areas were also deemed relatively important, receiving over 60% of votes for both “very important” and “important”. There were no

22 Respondents could specify forest risk commodities as they wanted, within a limit of 100 characters. Responses that were out of scope (e.g. not relevant to the question) have not been analysed. Certain forest risk commodities already on the list of forest risk commodities were reiterated by certain respondents because they wanted to add additional commodities to their list of six (i.e. cocoa, coffee, maize, palm oil, rubber, soy, pulp and paper – each mentioned once). Since “timber” is very often used synonymously for “wood”, some overlap is likely. However, as the timber under “other” is only one of seven products, any double-counting may be presumed to be small but not negligible.

policy areas that were not deemed important by more than 10% of respondents. However, foreign affairs, human rights and research were considered to be the least relevant policy areas when it comes to addressing deforestation and forest degradation.23

Figure 2-19 [Q12] "In your opinion, which of the following EU policy areas have the biggest potential to better address deforestation and forest degradation?" (n=955)

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 2% or less of the sample.

Respondents indicating that “other policy areas” were “very important” (12% out of “other policy areas”; n=112) highlighted the following additional policy areas24: culture (2%; n=22), silviculture/forestry (1%; n=13), justice (0.8%; n=8), education (0.8%; n=8), health (0.5%; n=5), diplomacy (0.4%; n=4), land (0.3%; n=3), industry (0.3%; n=3), economic development (0.2%; n=2), fisheries (0.2%; n=2), transport (0.2%; n=2), regional policy (0.1%; n=1), emergency response (0.1%; n=1), and urban planning (0.1%; n=1).

2.3.5 [Q13] Potential actions to step up EU action Finally, respondents were asked to identify the most important means to step up EU action against deforestation and forest degradation. Respondents were asked to rate 26 actions (including options for ‘other’), grouped across five different categories: supply-side actions (Q13a), demand-side actions

23 The high percentage of respondents having stated “I don’t know/no opinion” when referring to “other policy areas” can be explained by the fact that all 955 respondents had to provide an answer for each of the listed policy areas (including “other policy areas”). It is plausible that 79% of respondents answered “I don’t know/no opinion” because they had no other policy areas to add to the pre-defined list. 24 Respondents could specify as many policy areas as they wanted, within a limit of 100 characters. Responses that were out of scope have not been analysed.

(Q13b), finance and investment actions (Q13c), actions on strengthening international cooperation (Q13d), and mainstreaming actions (Q13e) (see Figure 2-20 to Figure 2-24). Table 2-5 shows the top five actions (amongst all actions presented in question 13)25 perceived as most important, based on the percentage of respondents having stated “very important” (i.e. ranking (1)), and “very important” and “important” (combined) (i.e. ranking (2)). As can be observed in the table, “ensuring the EU or the European Investment Bank (EIB) do not, even indirectly, finance projects contributing to deforestation” is the most prioritised action according to the first ranking, while “supporting forest policies, sustainable forest management, better protection, conservation and restoration of ecosystems” is the most prioritised action in the second ranking.

Table 2-5 Ranking of the importance of potential actions to better address deforestation and forest degradation (top 5)

% of respondents % of respondents having stated Ranking Ranking Action Action type having stated "very important" (1) (2) "very important" or "important" (combined) Ensure the EU or the European Investment Bank do not, even Finance and 82% 1 93% 5 indirectly, finance projects Investment contributing to deforestation Include the issue of deforestation and forest degradation into EU Mainstreaming 81% 2 95% 2 trade agreements signed with tropical countries Promote better forest law protection and land use planning, Supply-side 77% 3 94% 3 governance and law enforcement Support forest policies, sustainable forest management, Supply-side 76% 4 95% 1 better protection, conservation and restoration of ecosystems Address EU consumption of unsustainably produced forest risk Demand-side 74% 5 90% 8 commodities Strengthen forest monitoring and improve transparency and Supply-side 74% 6 93% 4 traceability in the supply chain

As Table 2-5 shows, it is possible to notice a change in the order of importance between the top five actions when actions are ranked according to the percentage of respondents having stated “very important” and when ranked according to the combined percentage of respondents having stated “very important” and “important”. However, it is to be noted that almost all proposed measures were highly ranked regardless, only one measure scored less than 80% in the combined (very important + important) ranking, this being the measure to “encourage the use of voluntary certification schemes”. The two other measures with relatively less importance attached to them were to “promote research/innovation activities, and knowledge sharing” and “better implement, coordinate and communicate actions in EU Member States”.

In the following sections each category of actions is analysed individually. Looking across the categories it is notable that supply-side actions were perceived as being the most important by stakeholders

25 With the exception of “other” actions, which were indicated as an option in each of the sub-questions of Q13.

(making up five out of the top ten actions), while the actions on international cooperation/dialogue were least prioritised (no actions in the top ten). Furthermore, questions 13a to 13e were also cross- analysed with the responses to question 6 on the perceived severity of the problem of deforestation and forest degradation, in addition to a distribution of results according to stakeholder groups. These cross- analyses can be found in Tables B-1 to B-10 in Annex B.

Supply side actions The supply-side actions considered most important by respondents were the promotion of better forest law protection and land use planning, governance and law enforcement (“very important” for 77% of respondents), as well as the support of forest policies, sustainable forest management, better protection, conservation and restoration of ecosystems (“very important” for 76% of respondents). Both were also perceived as one of the top three most important actions across all actions presented in question 13. Less than half of respondents (40%; n=385) considered the promotion of R&D activities and knowledge sharing as “very important” supply-side actions.26 The share of respondents considering this action as “very important” only rose by two percentage points when looking at the group of respondents that reported being “alarmed” by the problem of deforestation and forest degradation as “alarming” in question 6 (Table B-1 in Annex B).

Furthermore, it can be noted that most stakeholder groups rated all supply-side actions, to a large extent, as “very important”. However, there was a higher variation of opinons with regard to “supporting the uptake of sustainable/deforestation-free agriculture practices” within the NGO and public authority stakeholder groups, and of “strengthening forest monitoring and improving transparency and traceability in the supply chain” within the public authority stakeholder group (Table B-2 in Annex B).

26 For a similar reason to that of Q12, many respondents having answered “other” in Q13a may have stated “I don’t know/no opinion” due to the fact that they had no further supply-side actions to add. The same is valid for similar patterns observed in Q13b to Q13e.

Figure 2-20 [Q13a] Most important supply-side actions to step up EU action against deforestation and forest degradation (n=955)

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 2% or less of the sample.

A large share of respondents that considered “other” supply-side actions to be “very important” (46 out of 19127; 24%) re-emphasised the importance of supporting forest policies, sustainable forest management, better protection, conservation and restoration of ecosystems; as well as promoting better forest law protection and land use planning, governance and law enforcement (3%; n=29). Other respondents talked about the need to engage a wider variety of stakeholders to make supply-side actions more inclusive (1%; n=9), to support more sustainable and productive agricultural practices (1%; n=13), to support educational or training programmes (primarily in producer countries) (0.7%; n=7), to reduce economic dependency on exports of forest risk commodities (0.6%; n=6), to address problems of land governance and land speculation (0.5%; n=5), and to promote R&D and knowledge sharing activities (0.2%; n=2)28.

Demand side actions According to respondents, the most important (“very important”) demand-side actions were addressing EU consumption of unsustainably produced forest risk commodities (74%; n=704); encouraging the consumption of sustainable and deforestation-free products through improved transparency and information (63%; n=597); and considering initiatives to promote sustainable anddeforestation-free products on the EU market (60%; n=576). Encouraging voluntary certification schemes was one of the least supported measures across all of Q13 (the only action with more than 10% or n=117 voting “not important”).

27 191 respondents (20%) indicated that “other” supply-side actions were “very important”, as can be seen in Figure 2-20. The remaining percentages in this paragraph refer to the whole sample of 955 respondents. 28 Respondents could specify as many supply-side actions as they wanted, within a limit of 200 characters. Responses that were out of scope have not been analysed.

Figure 2-21 [Q13b] Most important demand-side actions to step up EU action against deforestation and forest degradation (n=955)

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 2% or less of the sample.

Respondents that considered “other” actions as “very important” (23%; n=218) presented the following demand-side actions29: promoting the transparency of supply chains and investing in due diligence (9%; n=84); creating a ban on (or limiting) the import of unsustainable commodities and products (3%; n=30); supporting more sustainable and healthy consumer behaviour (3%; n=26); promoting higher sustainability standards across the supply chain in general (2%; n=20); avoiding government/EU support for unsustainable agricultural or forestry practices (e.g. through subsidies) (0.8%; n=8); supporting educational programmes on nature/forest conservation (0.8%; n=8); adjusting price signals of products to account for the negative externalities of deforestation and forest degradation (0.6%; n=6); promoting the use and consumption of local or regional products (0.5%; n=5); and, enhancing the productivity of general resource use (e.g. through reusing and recycling goods and products) (0.2%; n=2).

All stakeholder groups generally perceived all demand-side actions as “very important” or “important”, albeit to different degrees (Table B-4 in Annex B). Opinions were somewhat more dispersed as regards to “encouraging the use of voluntary certification schemes”. This could be explained by the fact the certain respondents questioned the effectiveness of voluntary schemes in comparison to more legally binding legal mechanisms. The latter was brought up by six of the respondents having highlighted the need to promote the transparency of supply chains and to invest in due diligence as “other” potential actions (as mentioned above).

29 Respondents could specify as many demand-side actions as they wanted, within a limit of 200 characters. Responses that were out of scope have not been analysed.

Finance and investment actions The most important finance and investment actions were ensuring the EU/EIB do not, even indirectly, finance projects contributing to deforestation (82%; n=780) , increasing sustainability and transparency in financing of high deforestation and forest degradation risk sectors (67%; n=640), and improved disclosure of information on deforestation proofing in financial investments (59%; n=563) (Figure 2-22). Increasing the sustainability, availability and access to finance was perceived as less important (46%; n=441) compared to other actions.

Figure 2-22 [Q13c] Most important finance and investment actions to step up EU action against deforestation and forest degradation (n=955)

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 2% or less of the sample.

Other “very important” actions cited by respondents (18%; n=168) included30: improving due diligence of financed investments to ensure that they do not contribute to deforestation or environmental/social/ economic damage (7%; n=63); improving the transparency of investments and of financial assistance (2%; n=16); providing financial assistance/incentives for the restoration or preservation of ecosystems (ensuring a multi-stakeholder, inclusive approach) (2%; n=15); increasing the sustainability and availability of finance where needed most (0.6%; n=6); funding environmental education and research (0.5%; n=5); providing financial incentives for environmental stewardship in the private sector (0.4%; n=4); implementing a carbon-credit scheme for forests (0.3%; n=3); supporting investments in sustainable forest management practices (0.2%; n=2); investing in activities that can empower communities in producer/tropical countries to reduce dependency on the trade of forest risk commodities (0.2%; n=2); and, extending the focus of finance and investment actions to investment instruments outside the scope of the EU and the EIB (e.g. within the scope of the World Bank) (0.2%; n=2).

30 Respondents could specify as many finance and investment actions as they wanted, within a limit of 200 characters. Responses that were out of scope have not been analysed.

When looking at the split per stakeholder type (Table B-6 in Annex B), all actions were understood as being “very important” across all stakeholder groups, although to a lesser extent for companies/business organisations.

International cooperation actions Although the international cooperation/dialogue actions were not rated negatively, the degree of perceived importance comparted to other types of actions presented in question 13 is weaker (i.e. ranked in the bottom six overall31). However, it is important to note that a very limited proportion of respondents thought these measures were “not important” (3% for both, excluding “other”). As shown in Figure 2-23, working on an ambitious multilateral agreement that could focus on or integrate deforestation and forest degradation considerations into e.g. a Convention of the Parties was seen as very important by 59% (n=559) of respondents. Similiarly, 56% (n=538) of respondents considered working in partnership with consumer countries to step up action, including increasing the flow of sustainable forest risk commodities from tropical countries to the EU as very important.

Figure 2-23 [Q13d] Most important measures to strengthen international cooperation against deforestation and forest degradation (n=955)

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 3% or less of the sample.

Respondents having considered “other” international actions as being “very important” (16%; n=155) highlighted the following potential actions32: ensuring that trade agreements and flows account for environmental damage and human rights abuses (3%; n=30); increasing the monitoring of EU international commitments and activities abroad (and measuring their impact) (3%; n=26); working together with producing countries to enhance the sustainability of their products and their production processes (2%; n=16); developing a strong European position against deforestation and forest degradation through leadership, international commitments and policy measures (0.8%; n=8); engaging in more international commitments (e.g. REDD processes) or reinforcing existing commitments (0.7%; n=7); working together with producer countries to protect and empower local communities (0.6%; n=6), or to combat deforestation and protect ecosystems/biodiversity (0.6%; n=6); improving cooperation with NGOs, CSOs and intergovernmental institutions (0.6%; n=6); addressing global lobbies influencing

31 Not including options for “other”. 32 Respondents could specify as many actions on strengthening international cooperation/dialogue as they wanted, within a limit of 200 characters. Responses that were out of scope have not been analysed.

deforestation and including more diverse stakeholders in international dialogue (0.4%; n=4); and, focusing international dialogue more on the drivers of deforestation (0.3%; n=3).

Mainstreaming actions Including the issue of deforestation and forest degradation in EU trade agreements signed with tropical countries was rated as the most important measure among all mainstreaming actions (81% considering the measure as “very important”; n=773). Figure 2-24 shows that discouraging consumption of unsustainable and non-deforestation-free products was seen as very important by 67% of respondents (n=636), followed by better integrading deforestation and forest degradation considerations through relevant public policies with 57% (n=542). Better implementation, coordination and communication actions in EU Member States was ranked relatively low with 43% (n=411) compared with all measures in Q13 (ranked 18 out of 21 measures33).

Figure 2-24 [Q13e] Most important mainstreaming actions against deforestation and forest degradation (n=955)

Note: Any percentages that are not displayed on this graph represent 2% or less of the sample.

When looking at “other”, “very important” mainstreaming actions, respondents expanded on the option presented in Q13e of better integrating deforestation and forest degradation considerations through relevant public policies by highlighting some specific policy areas. Respondents also suggested some interactions of deforestation policy with different stakeholder groups, such as consumers and the private sector; and also suggested strengthening the international dimension of deforestation policy.

More specifically, the following actions were mentioned by respondents: mainstreaming the issue of deforestation and forest degradation into trade policy (e.g. through certifications, import restrictions or adding biodiversity, environmental conservation and land tenure considerations to trade agreements) (2%; n=22); improving and promoting communication, exchanges and knowledge sharing between diverse stakeholders (the private sector, the public sector, civil society and researchers) (1%; n=13);

33 Not including options for “other”.

interacting more with consumers and positively influencing consumer behaviour (1%; n=12); better integrating the issue of deforestation and forest degradation across all economic sectors to minimise the risk of deforestation/forest degradation holistically (0.8%; n=8); mainstreaming the issue of deforestation and forest degradation into energy policy (0.7%; n=7), as well as agricultural/food policy (0.5%; n=5); promoting more proactive and severe forest degradation/deforestation policies (0.5%; n=5); and, increasing coordination and cooperation with the private sector (0.5%; n=5). Some other actions were mentioned by only one or two respondents, including strengthening the harmony between EU measures and international measures (or standards), improving the alignment between Member States, and expanding the scope of successful policies to other sectors (e.g. the EU Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan). Additionally, 32 (3%) respondents reiterated that although mainstreaming actions were important, creating new policies (including legislation) was even more important.

Generally, the degree of importance of the potential mainstreaming actions presented in Q13e reflected the perceived severity of the problem of deforestation and forest degradation (as reported in Q6) (Table B-9 in Annex B). This trend can be observed across all sub-questions of question 13. However, it can be noted that, out of the respondents that perceived the problem of deforestation and forest degradation as “alarming” or “serious” in Q6, more respondents considered “discouraging the consumption of unsustainable and non-deforestation-free products”, and the “inclusion of deforestation and forest degradation into EU trade agreements”, as relatively more important than the “integration of deforestation and forest degradation considerations through relevant public policies” or the “improved implementation, coordination and communication of actions in Member States”. A relatively similar trend can be observed across all stakeholder groups in Table B-10 in Annex B.

2.4 [Q14] Other comments

Key Messages  Respondents underlined the importance of forests for their provision of ecosystem services and biodiversity (e.g. forest contribution to soil and water quality), their potential to stock carbon and combat climate change, as well as for their intrinsic value.  Agricultural expansion (particulary animal-based), population growth and dietary habits were cited as both direct and indirect drivers of deforestation.  Other contributors to deforestation include energy production (through the use of forest biomass), natural disasters, weak enforcement of legislation and illegal actions. The latter being valid for tropical and non-tropical forest countries (including certain EU Member States).  Low awareness and media coverage of deforestation and forest degradation allegedly contribute to the problem and should therefore be addressed through relevant actions.  A series of potential actions were suggested, including: improved governance, capacity, enforcement and monitoring; increased responsibility of the financial sector; more transparency and due diligence of supply chains, better forest management (e.g. through agroforestry); and the expansion of scope of existing measures such as FLEGT and the EUTR.

In the last question (Q14) of the survey, respondents were asked the following: “If you wish to add further information or suggestions for the initiative within the scope of this questionnaire – please

feel free to do so here.” 356 (37%) respondents gave an answer to this question. The key themes brought up by stakeholders in response to to question 14 have been split into a structure similar to that of the survey to better outline the perceived importance of forests, problems of deforestation and drivers, and policy action suggestions. Amongst the key themes referred to were:

Importance of forests The key themes included:

 Ecosystem services and biodiversity For a majority of the open responses analysed for the first draft report, it was clear that the perceived importance of forests comes predominantly from the ecosystems and biodiversity (and the services) they provide. The former was mentioned by 40 respondents (4%), with the latter being noted by 17 respondents (2%). Associated to this, some additional stakeholders noted in more detail the importance that forests have in regard to the provision of ecosystem services. These include their benefits to water and soil quality. A third smaller group noted that forests are important for their role in fostering the (bio)economy (0.5%; n=5). A campaign of 23 respondents (2%) outlined that any deforestation strategy should further address the conversion of ecosystems.

 Carbon stocks and climate change protection The main perceived importance of forests, by the survey stakeholders, was to mitigate climate change through the carbon they sequester over their lifetime (2%; n=20). It was noted by one stakeholder that one quarter of human-emitted carbon dioxide is sequestered by forests each year, with another referring to forests as “lungs of the earth”. This characteristic was therefore viewed by some as providing health benefits, to people and the planet. Furthermore, several respondents noted that particularly natural/primary forests have the greatest effect to combat climate change.

 Intrinisic worth Two stakeholders outlined that forests are important for their intrinsic worth. One of these noted that the commodification of nature deteriorates this intrinsic worth and provides opportunities for investors and companies to justifiably deforest land.

Problem of deforestation and drivers The main problems and drivers identified in the open responses included:

 Agricultural growth – and associated indirect drivers (population, diet) It was noted by 32 respondents (3%) that agriculture, and particularly animal-based agriculture, leads to large-scale deforestation. In the respondents’ view this is partly due to direct deforestation for animal land-use, or to allow for the growth of animal feedstocks (such as soy). One stakeholder noted how animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon destruction, with 1-2 acres of rainforest allegedly being cleared every second. Related to this, stakeholders outlined key forest-risk commodities that are significant drivers of deforestation. These were the usually identified commodities such as soy (2%; n=19), palm oil (1%; n=14), meat (0.7%; n=7), maize (0.4%; n=4), and cocoa (0.3%; n=3). The issue of these

forest-risk commodities often related to excessive consumption patterns/diets with a further three respondents noting that overpopulation further contributes to this overconsumption.

 Issues of deforestation in non-tropical areas Though there was a large focus on tropical/developing countries and their impacts on deforestation, 19 respondents (2%) outlined the issue of deforestation in other areas. In Europe, certain countries exemplified, including Portugal (0.4%; n=4), Poland (0.4%; n=4), Romania (0.3%; n=3), Lithuania (0.2%; n=2), Netherlands (0.1%; n=1), Sweden (0.1%; n=1), France (0.1%; n=1), and Bulgaria (0.1%; n=1). For the majority, the issue was poor forestry legislation and regulation, bad governance and enforcement. In Portugal, the issue of deforestation was linked with non-native species (see below). As previously mentioned, Canada was also outlined as a non-tropical area with issues of deforestation – allegedly mostly caused by European bioenergy demand.

 Forest biomass used as a renewable energy source: 15 respondents (2%) noted that energy is a large driver of deforestation. Most stakeholders referred to the perceived “green” nature of bioenergy, which allows for the use of biomass products. The increased deforestation rates (and the loss of carbon sinks) means biomass is less effective at reducing carbon emissions. One stakeholder outlined how this is an issue in Poland, Romania, Sweden, and France. Another respondent outlined how Canada’s forests are allegedly being hit hard by the European purchasing of biomass for energy generation. Two stakeholders linked to BirdLife Europe’s recommendations on bioenergy policy for the period of 2020-2030.

 Weak enforcement and illegal actions Finally, illegal deforestation was outlined by 14 respondents (1%) as a key driver of deforestation. Some Romanian respondents outlined how this is due to a lack of governmental oversight and not treating the issue with sufficient severity. However, for many, it was noted that illegal forestry due to a lack of law enforcement in tropical countries was also a key driver. Though the EU Timber Regulation was noted as tackling some EU import of illegally logged wood, some noted it was not sufficient. One stakeholder noted that more attention and stricter controls should be on third parties (such as China) which imports illegally sourced wood and then exports to the EU as wooden products.

 Disasters Disasters (forest fires, flooding, and diseases) were further outlined as a driver of deforestation by seven respondents (0.7%). However, this driver was often linked with other drivers of deforestation and forest degradation. These included poor forest management, the introduction of non-native species (see below), and peatland drainage or degradation. The use of fire for forest clearance for agriculture is an important issue but was not directly referenced by respondents and therefore it is unclear if the noted ‘forest fire’ disasters include these incidences.

 Non-native species There were six respondents (0.6%) that outlined the use of non-native species as a serious driver for deforestation and forest degradation. As noted above, Portugal was mentioned by

four stakeholders as having issues with the loss of native forests due to the “uncontrolled proliferation” of the Eucalyptus Globulus. This species of tree was noted as allegedly not providing as adequate ecosystem services as the native forests, due to the Eucalyptus being more prone to forest fires, not controlling flooding sufficiently etc. Other non-native species that contribute to deforestation and mentioned by stakeholders were: the Pyral Boxwood, Xylella olive trees, the Butterfly Palm, the Red Weevil, and the pine tree.

 Low awareness and media coverage Some respondents outlined that a lack of knowledge and media coverage/communication on the topic of deforestation was a driver for the issue (0.6%; n=6). It was argued that many consumers are willing to become more sustainable, however, their knowledge of the topic and sustainable consumption was too low to act on this enthusiasm. In the next section, several respondents further suggested better awareness raising as a means to tackle deforestation (see below).

Policy action suggestions A small group of respondents (0.5%; n=5) found that EU policy as a whole was quite timid. They believed that this was due to it being compromised by powerful agricultural interests. These interests were felt to have had an outsize influence on policy from lobbying activities. Putting these concerns to one side, a variety of general policy directions to reduce deforestation and forest degradation were recommended by the survey respondents, including:

 Improved governance, capacity, forest law enforcement (not industry led) and monitoring This theme was noted by 72 respondents (8%). Improved governance was a key subtheme noted by 43 survey respondents (5%). A majority of this group believed governance could be improved by involving more stakeholders (particularly civil society and indigenous groups – as noted by 19 respondents; 2%) in forestry issues. There were further examples of Member States that have governance issues with stopping illegal logging (Romania and Lithuania). The improvement of forestry enforcement (increased capacity, improved training) as a whole was noted by 20 respondents (2%) as a crucial element of future EU action. One of the respondents noted that enforcement was the “weakest link” in current EU policy. This ranged from supporting third country forestry management and forest law enforcement to ensuring operators in EU Member States who practice illegal forestry are properly punished. Finally, 12 respondents (1%) noted that better governance could be achieved through the better monitoring of problems associated with deforestation (for example, biodiversity requirements, and financial flows that contribute to deforestation).

 Increase the responsibility of finance sector Several respondents (5%; n=43) recommended that the financial sector should be more involved in combating deforestation. This was principally to ensure that EU-funded financial support does not contribute to deforestation. One stakeholder noted how New Zealand, California (USA), and Colombia had implemented effective market-based/financial mechanisms to ensure sustainable forestry practices.

 Measures in trade policy (risk commodities and import bans) Several respondents suggested that effective EU action could be taken by modifying trade policy to limit the import of unsustainably produced forest-risk commodities (3%; n=32). The goal of this being to ensure the sustainability of imported commodities, incentivising sustainable production in third countries. Many recommended limiting imports of certain products such as animal-feed soy, palm oil, and tropical wood, although it was not specified how.

 Improving transparency and due diligence of supply chains Improved transparency of supply chains was viewed as a tool to apply pressure on suppliers and producers by improving the information available to retailers and consumers and guiding more sustainable choices. For forestry, the EU could obligate this transparency via due diligence regulation (such as EUTR), which was outlined by 26 respondents (3%). The previous success of the EUTR for timber supply chains was noted by several respondents. Furthermore, some recommended that EUTR could be expanded to other commodities (see above). Certification and sustainability standards could assist with such regulation.

 Improved forest management The need to improve current forest management practices was outlined as a key policy action by 19 respondents (2%). It was discussed that agroforestry is an example of a positive first step forestry practice to combat deforestation (0.6%; n=6). Furthermore, agroforestry was noted by one stakeholder as a means to provide a local source of wood products. Another stakeholder suggested the broader adoption of “close to nature” forest management practices. This would remove the current general antagonisms between a growing forestry sector and the sustainable vision required to stop deforestation.

 More tangible support to tropical forest countries needed There were 18 respondents (2%) that believed EU action was best served supporting and/or cooperating with tropical and producer countries. It was noted that as the EU is the largest importer of several forest-risk commodities, it has a responsibility to ensure sustainable supply-chains from production to reuse. Supporting producer countries was considered as the only means to ensure this. Stakeholders outlined that this can be supported through technical and governance support, as well as providing support for forestry management practices.

 Expand scope of existing measures (FLEGT and EUTR) to address problem commodities (palm oil, soy, cocoa) 16 respondents (2%) requested that the scope of the FLEGT Action Plan and EUTR should be expanded to further target other forest-risk commodities. It was outlined by one stakeholder that these initiatives have had a positive effect on timber products, however, other products are higher-risk now. Respondents mostly broadly referred to the highest-risk forest commodities (such as palm oil, soy, and cocoa) as the key for being targeted by an expansion of existing measures.

 Better EU-level cooperation and coherence A better system of cooperation at an EU-level to tackle unsustainable forestry issues was outlined by 13 respondents (1%). Five of these noted that this could be achieved by improving

the coherence of the various Member States’ legislation. Three further respondents noted that it could be achieved via the sharing of best practices in sustainable forestry matters. Another put forward the notion to create international data sharing banks to allow governments across the EU to standardise practices based on commonly accepted statistics.

 Support EU self-sufficiency and development of its bioeconomy A crucial means to reduce the imports of unsustainable products and forest-risk commodities was to support EU self sufficiency and sustainability - this was noted by 11 respondents (1%). To facilitate this self-sufficiency, new alternatives to such products would be required. As noted by six respondents this could be achieved by reforming to a bio-economy, with a focus on local production, increased resource circularity, and agroforestry. Not only was this considered to boost local EU economies, but this would further facilitate the sustainable consumption of products and end embodied deforestation elsewhere.

 Manage indirect drivers (education, awareness raising, diet, population) Targeting indirect drivers was perceived by many to be effective in addressing deforestation at the EU-level. There were particular focuses on education and awareness raising (2%; n=17), dietary habits (1%; n=11) (especially reducing the consumption of meat – 0.5%; n=5), general consumption reduction measures (0.6%; n=6), and population management (0.4%; n=4). On education and awareness raising, suggestions were made for a range of potential initiatives, such as promoting forestry issues in schools, capacity development programmes for non-state actors, developing sustainable forestry eco-labels, and general awareness-raising campaigns for all EU citizens.

 Modify renewable energy policies A suggestion made by 10 respondents (1%) was to modify the demand of forestry products linked to EU renewable energy policy. This was mostly linked to the EU’s Renewable Energy Directive (RED) targets which were felt to drive increased use of biomass for energy purposes, leading to additional deforestation. Furthermore, the demand for biofuels (biodiesel, from palm oil and soybeans; or bioethanol, from maize) could also lead to additional deforestation. Some stakeholders also emphasised the need for a strong uptake of wind and solar energy instead of bioenergy.

 Need for greater conservation and restoration efforts In this respect, there were nine respondents (1%) that suggested that forests should be better conserved and protected. Respondents particularly referred to primary forests, which provide more added value in carbon stocks, soil quality, and biodiversity. Furthermore, one exemplified that Romanian forests should be better conserved, advocating for a 25-year forestry ban to allow the forests to regrow to their natural state. Reforestation and afforestation were referred to by 10 respondents (1%). One respondent (0.1%) recommended that reforestation rate targets could be provided to Member States to ensure broad EU reforestation rates are met. Furthermore, a few respondents outlined the importance of increased urban reforestation – the increase of tree coverage in urban environments.

 Need to look at fiscal measures (taxes and subsidies/incentives) Survey respondents stated that there should be fiscal incentives to encourage sustainable choices. To achieve this, five respondents (0.5%) specified providing subsidies for sustainable practices. A further six (0.6%) requested removing unsustainable subsidies, and four (0.4%) broadly noting that subsidies should be more coherent at an EU level. Furthermore, it was discussed by three respondents (0.3%) that product prices should internalise the cost of deforestation. Associated to this, a further six (0.6%) stakeholders stated this could be achieved via taxation on such products.

 Research and RD&I A few respondents (0.6%; n=6) discussed Research, Development and Innovation (RD&I) means to take action against deforestation. Most of these comments dealt with finding alternatives for wood products and meat or feed-stock protein substitutes.

 Decline in EU industry and importance Three respondents (0.3%) noted that the relative decline of EU industry and the rise of other countries’ forest product industries was a problem. One of the stakeholders stated that the use of sustainable forestry products has increased prices and decreased EU competitiveness on the international market. The trade of sawn timber and logs was provided as one example. Here, the respondent noted that EU manufacturers are struggling to survive, and this could lead to the loss of millions of jobs. No specific policy actions were suggested but the need was strongly implied.

 More intense use of land for agriculture and buildings For this suggestion, two respondents (0.2%) outlined that the EU should advocate for reducing the extent of land currently used for agriculture and increasing the extent of conserved forest land. As one of the stakeholders stated this would require a densification of human habitats and commercial and industrial areas.

2.5 Attachments to the OPC

Key Messages  97 attachments were received, from 94 respondents and including 13 joint/duplicate submissions  Many drivers were identified, in particular forest risk commodities (beef, soy, palm oil) and bioenergy, with calls for action in these areas  A more ambitious EU approach was called for, primarily by NGOs, environmental organisation and citizens. o Business organisations and companies also tended to support further measures, but there were more concerns over the economic impacts of regulatory steps  A focus on sustainable international supply chains was clear, with the need for due diligence, robust and transparent information for imports among the key measures called for to promote and ensure sustainability  International cooperation was noted as important, both on the supply side, for the EU to support producers in tropical countries to become more sustainable and on the demand

side for the EU to work with other major consumers to ensure wider buy-in for any measures

In addition to the OPC questionnaire, stakeholders could also submit position papers or other attachments. In total, 97 attachments were submitted to the OPC by 94 respondents. These attachments have been analysed and summarised at the stakeholder group level below. Individual summaries for all the attachments can be found in Annex C.

Out of the 97 attachments to this OPC, 37 (38%) came from NGOs (including think tanks, charities and foundations), 32 (33%) came from companies, business associations and business organisations, 10 (10%) came from environmental organisations, and the remainder came from other stakeholder groups, including citizens and acadmics or research institutions. Over half of the attachments submitted were drafted explicitly for this OPC, other documents consisted of journal articles, case studies, press releases, posters and presentations. 13 out of the 97 attachments were joint position papers submitted by two or more organisations. Almost all joint submissions came from NGOs (10 out of 13), one came from an environmental organisation (in cooperation with one NGO), and the last two have been submitted by the private sector (one business organisation/company and one business association). Amongst the 13 joint attachments, there were six unique submissions. In the case of joint submissions, one single summary has been drafted and repeated for each organisation that submitted the respective attachment (see Annex C).

Companies, Business Associations and Business Organisations From the attachments provided by companies, business associations and business organisations (n=32) there was a variety of opinions often based on the type of organistion/sector that the stakeholder represented. A focus on the traceability of supply chains to ensure the sustainability of forest products was outlined by seven. One means to achieve this is via certification. However, two stakeholders noted that voluntary schemes (including certification) were perceived to be ineffective in stopping deforestation. Several different sectors (wood pellet, maize, palm oil) had complaints that the survey/purpose of the EU communication was unfairly targeting their sector, to varying degrees. Others highlighted that their sector was not a large contributor to the problem. The US (n=5) and Swedish (n=1) wood/wood pellet sector particularly noted that their practices are sustainable and should not be viewed as forest-risk commodities in the same way as tropical country commodities. Many of these companies further mentioned that sustainable forest management was much more successful at protecting forests than conservation measures. Some stakeholders recommended that further regulatory measures are not needed. Others noted that any potential future legislation should focus on illegal logging and the loss of high-carbon tropical species. One EU woodworking stakeholder stated they are committed towards sustainability and was in favour of the extension of EUTR to cover all wood products.

Many of the business stakeholders stated that trade policy and sustainability criteria for imported goods/trade agreements was a key policy measure for combating deforestation (n=4), and that the EU can set a better global example for sustainable trade. Other recommendations for EU measures against deforestation included capacity building and finance in developing and third countries (n=5), RD&I activities (particularly for higher productivity yields from forest-risk crops) (n=5), increased due diligence (i.e. expansion of EUTR) (n=4), better governance and enforcement (i.e. FLEGT and reducing

illegal trade) (n=4), public procurement forestry criteria (n=4), EU coherence in policy (n=2), monitoring/data (n=3), focusing on poverty and/or alterative incomes for at risk groups (smallholder farmers) (n=2), supporting multi-stakeholder participation and the sharing of best practices (n=2), promoting agroforestry practices (n=2), promoting Corporate Social Responsibility (n=2), shifts in dietary patterns (reduce meat and dairy) (n=1), and cooperation with other consumer countries to take action (n=1).

Forester There was only one attachment submitted by a forester stakeholder, which focused on Peruvian forests and deforestation action within that context. It noted that although the government runs some positive programmes (for forest and indigenous protection/conservation), they also provide some incentives that promote private investment. This was seen as negative, as it promoted agricultural expansion. Positive future steps would be to eliminate these incentives, strengthen monitoring practices, and promote sustainable forestry and agroforestry practices.

Academic/Research Institutions Academic/research institutions provided four attachments in total. Two of the papers provided recommendations on means to better monitor and assess deforestation. This was deemed necessary as according to one of the papers there is currently no common definition of deforestation, and no agreed framework for monitoring and verification. Both contributions were aimed at ensuring that monitoring practices could be achieved with one inventory check, rather than several (as seems to be current practice).

The other two papers outlined recommendations for further EU action. This included, creating transparent supply chains and investing in access to sustainable supply chains, international cooperation with consumer countries, addressing multiple levels of policy, governance and stakeholder groups, and focusing efforts towards agriculture (trade and consumption innovation, developing global south practices, better understanding of third country lobbying, address EU imports and policy - i.e. CAP). Finally, one of the papers suggested building on the success of FLEGT.

EU Citizens There were six EU citizens that provided attachments to the OPC. Views from this group were rather scattered. One outlined the productivity and conservation gains that could be gained through local community ownership of forests, providing an example of an Italian project of local forest management in the valley of Degano-Pesarino. Another stakeholder further supported local production being encouraged by the EU. Furthermore, they advocated the banning of uncertified wood or the operation of companies that had committed forestry or human rights offences within the EU.

Using R&D to find better, more sustainable alternatives to forest-risk products and production methods was also noted. It was noted by one stakeholder that timber imports could be reduced with better internal forest management resulting in higher quality forestry products. This was linked by one stakeholder to current practices (particularly for reforestation) being shortsighted. This was particularly in the regard to the use of pine and eucalyptus, which present higher risks of soil degradation and increased risk of wildfires in comparison to native species. They further noted that we should not compete with tropical agricultural production, as the tropics have a natural advantage, and therefore international cooperation is vital.

Non-EU Citizens Two papers were received from non-EU citizens. These were quite different in their focus: one providing a journal paper on forest protection in the EU, serving as a review of the current context with some reflection on a forest protection strategy and a binding treaty that deal with forest materials use for bioenergy. The other submission was a paper on behalf of a university group which made a group of recommendations for improving what they perceived as a ‘weak’ EU strategy. These recommendations included measures that address all native vegetation not just forests; stronger language on governance and more requirements for sustainable supply chains; a focus on reducing consumption not just on increasing production efficiency; greater consideration of finance and investment spending and incentives; and, improving the diffusion of knowledge to policymakers and consumers.

Environmental Organisations Ten papers were submitted by environmental organisations. These focused on a handful of key themes. Firstly, a focus on the drivers of deforestation, among which attention was particularly drawn to Forest Risk Commodities, especially beef, soy and palm oil. At the same time, other drivers were also acknowledged, such as population growth, the high value of land making deforestation attractive in Brazil, small-holder agriculture and the indirect land use change impact of bioenergy crops. Case study examples from the Cerrado in Brazil and a project called USERS were provided.

Amongst the measures suggested to tackle the problems various demand and supply side measures were proposed, with broad agreement that more ambitious EU action was needed. Specifically, a focus on long-term local action on the one hand and on the other to work with other international consumer countries (e.g. USA and China) to achieved better controls. Improved information, more transparent and robust supply chains and more due diligence were among the key measures suggested, with a focus on ensuring imports were sustainable or curtailed. It was also recommended to limit or ban the use of biofuels from forest risk commodities.

Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) 37 organisations submitted attachments to the OPC, out of which 10 attachments were joint position papers. NGOs welcomed the initiative to step up EU action against deforestation and forest degradation, but they highlighted the fact that ‘stepping up action’ implies showing more ambition through new, regulatory/legislative measures. Certain contributors were thus wary of the ‘weak’ phrasing of the Roadmap.

A few NGOs expressed their views on how developing countries perceive regulatory measures or restrictions on the forest commodities that their produce. This group of NGOs noted that developing countries depend on agriculture and that it is important for the EU to provide technical and financial assistance on the ground, but also to recognise efforts made to improve the sustainability of supply chains and to reward progress. Following from that, several NGOs mentioned the importance of supporting smallholders, forest-dependent communities and indigenous people and including them in relevant discussions. Part of this discussion includes addressing land tenure rights of indigenous and local communities and working with producing countries to reinforce land and forest protection governance systems.

Furthermore, contributors from the NGO sector repeatedly made reference to due diligence efforts, including Human Rights Due Diligence, improved transparency and monitoring of supply chains, and corporate disclosure actions. Due diligence should target supply chains of forest risk commodities, as well as financial and investment flows. On this note, certain respondents suggested linking the Action Plan on deforestation and forest degradation to the Action Plan on Sustainable Finance, as well as developing green financial products. Other EU policy areas where deforestation issues could be better streamlined are agriculture (e.g. via the CAP), trade policy, and bioenergy policy (e.g. via the Renewable Energy Directive).

On an international level, the Action Plan on deforestation and forest degradation was also seen as a way to facilitate existing international commitments, and to tackle corruption and illegal activity in producing countries. NGOs also encouraged the EU to lead by example and to maintain dialogue with other large players and consumers of forest risk commodities such as China.

Public Authority Only one position paper was submitted under this category by the Amsterdam Declarations Partnership (ADP), representing the signatory countries of the Amsterdam Declaration. The ADP highlights that it supports the potential actions presented in the Roadmap, and makes a broad spectrum of suggestions on what topics should be addressed by the EU. The latter include suggestions on the scope of future EU action, the type of policy measures, and the need for coherence and technical assistance support.

Other There were four attachments submitted under this category. One paper discussed sustainable forestry finance and REDD+ as a key tool to tackle deforestation and forest degradation, one attachment was submitted on behalf of the forest commodity and mining/extractive minerals industries, while two papers focused specifically on the production and trade of cocoa.

All submissions underlined the need for the EU to become more engaged in international discussions (e.g. via various relevant UN conventions); to set an example worldwide (e.g. by providing more finance to REDD+); and to take small producers, local communities and indigenous people into account when taking action in producer countries. Another important pillar of action that was highlighted in all attachments consists of supporting sustainable agricultural practices and Sustainable Forest Management (SFM) principles and best practices, in Europe and beyond.

2.6 Submissions to the Roadmap

On the roadmap for the Communication, stakeholders had the opportunity to provide comments. This section addresses the submissions made to the roadmap.34 In total, there were 202 comments submitted to the roadmap. This section summarises these responses.

It is important to note that some things mentioned by the respondents are out of scope of the EU’s mandate. Nevertheless, they are presented below to accurately reflect the submissions provided by stakeholders.

34 EC (2019) Deforestation and forest degradation – stepping up EU action. Available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/better-regulation/initiatives/ares-2018-6516782_en.

Furthermore, it is important to identify that there were some repeated submissions, collaborative responses and campaigns present within the roadmap submissions. Repeated entries from the same person have been removed from this analysis. Campaigns have not been removed when the entries comprised of different individuals. In total there were two campaigns. The first was a mixed group of at least 10 stakeholders who supported the environmentalist and blogger Aleks Estimov. All of which provided near-identical text on the need for market incentives (taxes, only sustainable subsidies, eco- labels etc.). Furthermore, all submissions from this campaign made reference to the justification of such measures under Article 191(2) TFEU: “…environmental damage should as a priority be rectified at source and that the polluter should pay”. The second campaign of 10 stakeholders was from a contingent of Canadian citizens from the province of Nova Scotia. They were worried about the effects of EU trade for Canadian timber on the mass deforestation on their province. They all suggested a need to decrease the EU’s dependency on biomass fuel.

Importance of forests From the initial sample of roadmap submissions, there were a few clear key reasons explaining why forests are important to society. Biodiversity was seen by 31 (23 citizens, six NGOs, one business and one environmental organisation) as a pivotal role of forests, providing “incomparable value for life of all beings and spaces of freedom and imagination”. One stakeholder noted that it would be an incalculable loss based on the potential discoveries we have yet to uncover from other species. Following this, forests as a means to mitigate and adapt to global warming was also regarded highly by respondents. This characteristic of forests was explicitly mentioned by 26 stakeholders (15 citizens, seven NGOs, three companies/business assocaitions, and two environmental organisations), with one stakeholder noting that “forests are the lungs of our planet”. Another aspect of importance for forests, as noted by 20 (18 citizens, and two NGOs), was the ecosystem services they provide, such as limiting air pollution, mitigating flooding, and providing clean soil and water. Finally, 11 citizens noted that forests are crucial as an economic source, one stating it could be worth trillions of euros.

Problem of deforestation and drivers There were several drivers of deforestation outlined by roadmap submissions. 24 stakeholders (18 citizens, three NGOs, and three environmental organisations) noted that “green” energy including solid biomass, is a major source of deforestation. Farming was outlined by 17 (11 citizens, three business, and an NGO) as a main driver. Several of these specified animal feed as a specific driver within this. Furthermore, the NGO outlined that the expansion of agricultural activities contributes to the decline of more than 4,000 forest-dependent species. Nine citizens noted that viewing forests as a source of profit rather than a common good for humanity is a driver for deforestation. Two respondents (citizens) linked this to a lack of respect for nature. Poverty was further outlined by six stakeholders (three business associations, two NGOs, and a citizen) as a driver for deforestation. Finally, illegal deforestation (five stakeholders), mining exploitation (two stakeholders), political apprehension on environmental action (one stakeholder), and overpopulation (one stakeholder) were additional perceived drivers of deforestation.

Policy action suggestions Several policy action suggestions were made by the roadmap submissions. The main category suggested was the need for further regulatory measures. However, 26 stakeholders (nine NGOs, 12 citizens, one business associations, two academics, and two environmental organisations) stated that any regulatory

actions to combat deforestation should be mindful of vulnerable communities (the poor, child labourers, and indigenous people) and their human rights. Mostly, stakeholders (three NGOs, 13 citizens, and one business associations) requested more regulated reforestation or forest protection (i.e. with protected areas for primary forests). Due diligence regulation was outlined by 16 NGOs as an important potential solution. Many referred to companies complying to environmental due diligence, however for deforestation issues Human Rights Due Diligence (HRDD) was also deemed important to implement. Some respondents (11 NGOs, two citizens, and one environmental organisation) advocated for stricter sustainability certification for forest-risk commodities. Three environmental organisations, an NGO, and a citizen suggested that biomass should be removed from the list of renewable energies under the Renewable Energy Directive. Moreover, four stakeholders (one citizen, two NGOs, and an environmental organisation) noted that sustainability criteria should be standardised across products. Regulation on sustainable public procurement policy at an EU-level was also noted by two business associations and two NGOs. Two NGOs highlighted however that voluntary measures were ineffective and that more concrete measures were required to address the issue. Finally, the better enforcement of forest protection law was noted by one NGO.

Several actions relating to economic activies were mentioned by stakeholders. Trade sustainability criteria, import restrictions/bans, and development cooperation were outlined by 31 (19 citizens, one research institute, four companies/business associations, and seven NGOs). 20 (18 citizens, one academic and one NGO) outlined the cessation of subsidies for sectors influencing deforestation as important, and a further 15 citzens suggested providing sustainable forestry subsidies to forest-risk sectors to encourage positive practices. Particularly two citizens outlined applying market pressure to countries which have lapsed in their protection of forests/nature (i.e. Brazil and the US). 15 citzens and one business stakeholder broadly referred to using economic incentives as a means to preserve forests. In more depth, 16 (14 citizens, one NGO and one environmental organisation) outlined the taxation of unsustainably produced forest risk commodities as a positive action to take. However, some non-EU stakeholders warned that further restrictions could disenfranchise improverished workers in producer countries. Therefore more targeted and tailored approaches were suggested. One such approach included providing fines and sanctions (three citizens, two NGOs, one environmental organisation), particularly towards companies that knowingly take advantage of unsustainable forestry products.

Awareness raising measures were further noted by a large proportion of stakeholders (25 citizens, five business associations, and one NGO). This included better eco-labelling, to create more transparency on the deforestation impacts or Greenhouse Gas (GHG) emission of products; celebrating events such as World Forestry Day (21st March), as a catalyst for awareness; and provide more citizen-level information, e.g. through providing more dietary health data (for forest risk products, most prominently meat). This linked to the idea of ensuring EU action changes consumption patterns to ensure the protection of forests. This was suggested by 20 citizens, one NGO and an environmental organisation. Transparency measures, such as apps to track personal consumption, company monitoring systems, or providing more open data on how financial flows effect deforestation were also outlined as positive actions to better protect forests at an EU level (six citizens, four NGOs, two business associations, and one research institute). Circular economy measures for wood and forest-risk commodities were outlined by five citzens as a means to facilitate this. Two citizens and one environmental organisation suggested transforming our current economic model to focus on post-growth would be an effective way to shift consumption patterns. Finally, three citizens suggested more

spending on R&I activities, such as sustainable farming methods, and alternative means to produce protein (laboratory meat, or amino acid feedstocks).

Lastly, action was discussed at a local, national, EU and international level by the various submissions to the roadmap. At a local level, it was noted by 14 (five citizens, three NGOs, and five business associations) that multi-stakeholder participation on deforestation issues was key. One noted that this had been demonstrated as successful in the Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) Action Plan. Particularly sub-national levels were focused on, with some also referring to better collaboration with indigenous groups for better forestry management. Several stakeholders (four citizens, four NGOs, and three business associations) noted that EU coherence was necessary to achieve more effective action against deforestation. This was noted as being required between subnational levels, between the European Commission DGs, and between EU policy as a whole. At an international level, five (three citizens, one NGO, and one environmental organisation) noted that deforestation has to be dealt with via the implementation of international law. One of these suggested introducing “ecocide” into international law to better protect the natural environment.

3 Conclusions and recommendations

The following bullets provide some conclusions and recommendations for policy actions based on the analysis presented in this report.

Disclaimer: These conclusions and recommendations represent the opinions of the authors of this report and do not reflect or commit the EU to a position or course of action.

Conclusions The following conclusions could be drawn:  Overall, the problem of deforestation and forest degradation was qualified as “alarming” or ‘serious’ by more than 95% of respondents.  Across all different stakeholder groups a high importance is given to reducing deforestation and to improving action at EU level. Whilst business stakeholders were less strong in their support across the questions, they still expressed high concern about deforestation and its drivers, and stressed the importance of taking action.  Indirect drivers of deforestation and forest degradation were generally perceived to be more important than direct drivers. The expansion of large-scale commercial agriculture was considered to be the most impactful direct driver of deforestation and forest degradation, while weak forest protection law and adequate enforcement was considered to be the most impactful indirect driver of deforestation and forest degradation.  Respondents believed that the problem of deforestation and forest degradation should be addressed primarily for reasons of ecosystem and biodiversity conservation, followed by combating climate change, strengthening efforts towards sustainable development and ensuring sustainable use of natural resources, and protecting the rights and livelihoods of forest communities and indigenous peoples.  Action at international, EU and national levels is seen as most important to tackling deforestation and forest degradation.  A large majority of respondents (73%) consider the current EU policy and legislative framework against deforestation and forest degradation to be inadequate.  Respondents would like the EU to develop a coherent framework, including measures that support and enhance the coherence of existing commitments and initiatives by Member States, civil society and the private sector.  There is some support for the introduction of new initiatives and other measures such as: including more binding regulatory measures (as opposed to voluntary mechanisms), adding more market-based instruments (e.g. taxes on forest commodities), including a wider range of stakeholders in policy discussions, as well as making more use of REDD+ mechanisms.  Respondents support taking action on forest-risk commodities, especially palm oil, meat (including leather), soy and biodiesel.  Key priority measures to address the problem of deforestation and forest degradation identified were: 1. Making sure the EU and EIB funding do not contribute, even indirectly, to deforestation; 2. Including deforestation and forestry issues within trade agreements of tropical countries;

3. Promoting better forest law protection and land use planning, governance and law enforcement; 4. Supporting forest policies, sustainable forest management, better protection, conservation and restoration of ecosystems; and, 5. Addressing EU demand for unsustainably produce forest risk commodities as well as stregthening forest monitoring and improving transparency and traceability in supply.  Stakeholders seemed quite sceptical of the value of voluntary measures, particularly certifications or measures that rely exclusively on industry.

Recommendations A significant number of specific suggestions were received through the consultation process. Below are some recommendations for policy measures by the EC, identified by the authors of this analysis, as the most prominent.

 The EC should encourage greater transparency of supply chains, and the due diligence required of suppliers, to encourage greater accountability and sustainability.  The sustainability of biofuel and bioenergy sources should be an important policy priority. Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of sustainability criteria, the impacts on forests globally and the actual contribution to reduced carbon emissions from bioenergy are crucial to ensure that energy policy does not indirectly drive unsustainable deforestation.  Further consideration should be given to how trade policy can be used to incentivise sustainable production, deter consumption of forest-risk commodities. This is particularly important for commodities such as palm oil and soy.  Attention should also be given to ways that MS can be supported by the EC to develop supportive fiscal policies to incentivise more sustainable production and consumption decisions.  EC international cooperation policy and funding, such as through the EIB or other institutions, must not directly or indirectly drive deforestation. Funding criteria should be adapted to ensure this is given full consideration. International cooperation projects should also target improving forest management techniques and capacity in important forest countries.  The EC should encourage EU MS in their efforts to prevent deforestation and illegal forest activities.  The EC should pursue stronger contributions to and more ambitious policy measures at international level, supporting REDD+ and initiatives such as the FAO initiative Sustainable Wood for a Sustainable World.  The EC should increase action on conservation and reforestation. There were several suggestions by respondees to step up action for management and protection of protected areas, including restoration of degraded protected areas and addressing buffer zones and surrounding landscape by applying landscape approaches.

Annex A: OPC questionnaire transcript

Introduction

The overall objective of this initiative is to step up EU action against tropical deforestation and forest degradation by developing a more coherent and comprehensive approach to the problem. This public consultation aims at gathering information and views on potential EU action against deforestation and forest degradation to achieve the abovementioned objective. All interested stakeholders are invited to respond to the questionnaire regardless of their level of expertise. The questionnaire takes about 20 minutes to complete. You can save your replies as a draft and finish the survey later. It is accessible in 23 EU languages and you are free to submit your reply in any of these languages. Questionnaires sent by e-mail or on paper will not be analysed.

Your responses will be taken into account in the European Commission's future work on deforestation and forest degradation. It is therefore important that you complete this questionnaire as fully as possible. Your replies will be used exclusively to help the European Commission develop its policy on the issue in question.

The survey is available online for 6 weeks.

Before responding, we advise you to read the background information (roadmap and consultation webpage). The results will be published on the consultation page.

Your opinion matters to us. Thank you very much for taking the time to contribute to this consultation.

About you

Language of my contribution  Bulgarian  Croatian  Czech  Danish  Dutch  English  Estonian  Finnish  French  Gaelic  German  Greek  Hungarian  Italian  Latvian  Lithuanian  Maltese  Polish  Portuguese  Romanian  Slovak  Slovenian  Spanish  Swedish

I am giving my contribution as  Academic/research institution  Business association  Company/business organisation  Consumer organisation  EU citizen  Environmental organisation  Non-EU citizen

 Non-governmental organisation (NGO)  Public authority  Trade union  Other

First name

Last name

Email (this won’t be published)

Scope  International  Local  National  Regional

Organisation name 255 character(s) maximum

Organisation size  Micro (1 to 9 employees)  Small (10 to 49 employees)  Medium (50 to 249 employees)  Large (250 or more)

Transparency register number 255 character(s) maximum Check if your organisation is on the transparency register. It's a voluntary database for organisations seeking to influence EU decision-making.

Country of origin Please add your country of origin, or that of your organisation.  Afghanistan  France  Palestine  Åland Islands  French Guiana  Panama  Albania  French Polynesia  Papua New Guinea  Algeria  French Southern and  Paraguay  American Samoa Antarctic Lands  Peru  Andorra  Gabon  Philippines  Angola  Georgia  Pitcairn Islands  Anguilla  Germany  Poland  Antarctica  Ghana  Portugal  Antigua and Barbuda  Gibraltar  Puerto Rico  Argentina  Greece  Qatar  Armenia  Greenland  Réunion  Aruba  Grenada  Romania  Australia  Guadeloupe  Russia  Austria  Guam  Rwanda  Azerbaijan  Guatemala  Saint Barthélemy  Bahamas  Guernsey  Saint Helena  Bahrain  Guinea Ascension and Tristan  Bangladesh  Guinea-Bissau da Cunha  Barbados  Guyana  Saint Kitts and Nevis  Belarus  Haiti  Saint Lucia  Belgium  Heard Island and  Saint Martin  Belize McDonald Islands  Saint Vincent and the  Benin  Honduras Grenadines

 Bermuda  Hong Kong  Samoa  Bhutan  Hungary  San Marino  Bolivia  Iceland  São Tomé and  Bonaire Saint  India Príncipe Eustatius and Saba  Indonesia  Saudi Arabia  Bosnia and  Iran  Senegal Herzegovina  Iraq  Serbia  Botswana  Ireland  Seychelles  Bouvet Island  Isle of Man  Sierra Leone  Brazil  Israel  Singapore  British Indian Ocean  Italy  Sint Maarten Territory  Jamaica  Slovakia  British Virgin Islands  Japan  Slovenia  Brunei  Jersey  Solomon Islands  Bulgaria  Jordan  Somalia  Burkina Faso  Kazakhstan  South Africa  Burundi  Kenya  South Georgia and the  Cambodia  Kiribati South Sandwich  Cameroon  Kosovo Islands  Canada  Kuwait  South Korea  Cape Verde  Kyrgyzstan  South Sudan  Cayman Islands  Laos  Spain  Central African  Latvia  Sri Lanka Republic  Lebanon  Sudan  Chad  Lesotho  Suriname  Chile  Liberia  Svalbard and Jan  China  Libya Saint Pierre and Mayen  Christmas Island Miquelon  Swaziland  Clipperton  Liechtenstein  Sweden  Cocos (Keeling)  Lithuania  Switzerland Islands  Luxembourg  Syria  Colombia  Macau  Taiwan  Comoros  Madagascar  Tajikistan  Congo  Malawi  Tanzania  Cook Islands  Malaysia  Thailand  Costa Rica  Maldives  The Gambia  Côte d’Ivoire  Mali  Timor-Leste  Croatia  Malta  Togo  Cuba  Marshall Islands  Tokelau  Curaçao  Martinique  Tonga  Cyprus  Mauritania  Trinidad and Tobago  Czech Republic  Mauritius  Tunisia  Democratic Republic  Mayotte  Turkey of the Congo  Mexico  Turkmenistan  Denmark  Micronesia  Turks and Caicos  Djibouti  Moldova Islands  Dominica  Monaco  Tuvalu  Dominican Republic  Mongolia  Uganda  Ecuador  Montenegro  Ukraine  Egypt  Montserrat  United Arab Emirates  El Salvador  Morocco  United Kingdom  Equatorial Guinea  Mozambique  United States  Eritrea  Myanmar/Burma  United States Minor  Estonia  Namibia Outlying Islands  Ethiopia  Nauru  Uruguay  Falkland Islands  Nepal  US Virgin Islands  Faroe Islands  Netherlands  Uzbekistan  Fiji  New Caledonia  Vanuatu  Finland  New Zealand  Vatican City  Former Yugoslav  Nicaragua  Venezuela Republic of  Niger  Vietnam Macedonia  Nigeria  Wallis and Futuna

 France  Niue  Western Sahara  French Guiana  Norfolk Island  Yemen  French Polynesia  North Korea  Zambia  French Southern and  Northern Mariana  Zimbabwe Antarctic Lands Islands  Finland  Norway  Former Yugoslav  Oman Republic of  Pakistan Macedonia  Palau

Publication privacy settings The Commission will publish the responses to this public consultation. You can choose whether you would like your details to be made public or to remain anonymous.  Anonymous Only your type, country of origin and contribution will be published. All other personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency register number) will not be published.  Public Your personal details (name, organisation name and size, transparency register number, country of origin) will be published with your contribution.

I agree with the personal data protection provisions

Section I: Specific information about the respondent

[Q1] Please specify again in what capacity you are replying to this questionnaire. According to your reply, you may be guided to a different sub-question.  1. Business association  2. Company/business organisation  3. EU farmer  4. Non-EU farmer  5. Forester  6. Consumer organisation  7. Academic/research institution  8. EU citizen  9. Non-EU citizen  10. Environmental organisation  11. Non-governmental organisation  12. Public authority  13. Trade union  14. Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify your capacity here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q1.1] Please indicate your main field of activity or interest.35 at most 3 choice(s) (Multiple entries possible)  Agriculture  Climate change  Consumption  Development cooperation  Education/science  Energy  Environment  Food/beverage industry  Forestry/timber

35 This question was open to business associations, companies/business organisations, EU and non-EU farmers, and foresters.

 Health  Human rights/labour rights  Indigenous peoples  Investment and finance  Media and communication  Mining/extractive industry  Nature  Trade  Transport  Urban planning and development  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify your field of activity or interest here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q1.2] Please indicate your main field of activity or interest.36 at most 3 choice(s) (Multiple entries possible)  Agriculture  Climate change  Consumption  Development cooperation  Education/science  Energy  Environment  Food/beverage industry  Forestry/timber  Health  Human rights/labour rights  Indigenous peoples  Investment and finance  Media and communication  Mining/extractive industry  Nature  Trade  Transport  Urban planning and development  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify your field of activity or interest here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q1.3.1] What type of agricultural activities are you primarily engaged in?37 (Multiple entries possible)  We produce agricultural commodities  We import agricultural commodities  We export agricultural commodities  We produce products derived from agricultural commodities  We sell intermediate products based on agriculture commodities  We sell final products based on agriculture commodities  Other

36 This question was open to all respondents. 37 This question was open to business associations, companies/business organisations, EU and non-EU farmers, and foresters that also indicated “agriculture” or “food/beverage industry” as activities or fields of interest in Q1.1.

If you selected “Other”, please specify your type of activity here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q1.3.2] What type of forestry and timber activities are you primarily engaged in?38 (Multiple entries possible)  We produce forest commodities  We import forest commodities  We export forest commodities  We produce products derived from forest commodities  We sell intermediate products based on forest commodities  We sell final products based on forest commodities  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify your type of activity here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q1.3.3] What type of mining/extractive industry activities are you primarily engaged in?39 (Multiple entries possible)  We produce mining/extractive materials  We import mining/extractive materials  We export mining/extractive materials  We produce products derived from mining/extractive materials  We sell intermediate products based on mining/extractive materials  We sell final products based on mining/extractive materials  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify your type of activity here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q1.4] Please indicate which of the following statements best describes your current situation.40 (Multiple entries possible)  We are a business association that represents the interests of producers  We are a business association that represents the interests of buyers  We are a business association that represents the interests of the industry at large (producers, traders, consumers)  Other

If you selected “Other”, please describe your current situation here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q2] So-called 'forest risk commodities' are commodities whose production contribute significantly to tropical deforestation and forest degradation. Which of the following commodities are you and/or your organisation most familiar with and/or interested in? at most 6 choice(s)  Bio-diesel  Bioethanol  Charcoal  Other wood-based fuels

38 This question was open to business associations, companies/business organisations, EU and non-EU farmers, and foresters “forestry/timber” activities/fields of interest in Q1.1. 39 This question was open to business associations, companies/business organisations, EU and non-EU farmers, and foresters that indicated “mining/extractive industry” as one of their activities or fields of interest in Q1.1. 40 This question was open to business associations.

 Cocoa  Coffee  Extractive materials  Maize  Meat (including leather)  Palm oil  Paper  Pulp  Rubber (natural)  Soy  Wood  Wood pellets  Wooden products  Other

If you selected “Other”, please mention the commodities here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q3] How well informed are you about the problem of deforestation and forest degradation?  Very well informed  Well informed  Somewhat informed  Not well informed  Not informed at all

[Q4] What are your main sources of information on deforestation and forest degradation?  National newspapers  Regional or local newspapers  Magazines  Television news  The radio  Films and documentaries on television  Family, friends or neighbours  Colleagues  Professional contacts  Brochures or information materials  Books or scientific literature  Events (conferences, fairs, exhibitions, festivals, etc.)  Museums, national or regional parks  Online social networks  The internet (other websites, blogs, forums, etc.)  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify your sources here. 100 character(s) maximum

Section II: The role of forests and the problem of deforestation and forest degradation

[Q5] In your opinion, how important...41  ... are forests for human wellbeing?  ... is the role of forests in natural systems?  ... are forests to absorb CO2 and prevent global warming?  ... are the environmental, social and economic services forests provide?  ... are forests for the sustainability of rural livelihoods?

41 Respondents could select either “indispensable”, “important”, “relatively important”, “not important”, or “I don’t know/no opinion” for each option.

 ... are forests for our food security?  ... is it to protect forests for their intrinsic and cultural value?  ... is it to protect forests for future generations?

[Q6] In your opinion, the problem of deforestation and forest degradation is:  Alarming  Serious  Moderate  Negligible  I don't know/no opinion

[Q7a] Deforestation and forest degradation are caused by several drivers. Please indicate how important you consider the following direct drivers.42  Expansion of large-scale commercial agriculture  Expansion of small-scale and subsistence agriculture  Industrial logging/industrial forest products extraction  Fuelwood extraction  Illegal logging  Infrastructure development  Urban expansion  Mining/extractive industry  Natural causes (forest fires, climate change, pests and diseases)  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify the direct drivers here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q7b] Please rate the following indirect drivers of deforestation and forest degradation.43  Low productivity at farm, plot or plantation level or in the processing chains  Low resource efficiency resulting in waste and loss  Weak governance of land and weak enforcement of law  Weak forest protection law and adequate enforcement  Poor forest/land management practices  Lack of public policies promoting commodities produced with less impact on forests  Lack of incentives for private sector to source commodities produced with less impact on forests  Lack of private sector policies, commitments and engagements in deforestation-free supply chains  Low consumer awareness of risks of deforestation related to commodities  High consumption levels of forest risk commodities  Increasing demand for forest risk commodities due to population growth and increasing standards of living  High consumer country dependency on feed imports  Policy driven increase in demand for commodities  High dependence of countries on agriculture and forest sector  Insufficient finance for investments in sustainable agriculture in producer countries  Finance and investment flows from the EU and other countries  Trade agreements  Low social and economic development of large part of local population in producer countries  Climate change  Other

42 Respondents could select either “very important”, “important”, “relatively important”, “not important”, or “I don’t know/no opinion” for each option. 43 Respondents could select either “very important”, “important”, “relatively important”, “not important”, or “I don’t know/no opinion” for each option.

If you selected “Other”, please specify the direct drivers here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q8] In your opinion, what are the main reasons to address deforestation and forest degradation?44  Protecting the rights and livelihoods of forest communities and indigenous peoples  Protecting biodiversity, ecosystems and their services  Mitigating and adapting to climate change  Ensuring good governance of land and addressing corruption  Strengthening efforts towards sustainable development and ensuring sustainable use of natural resources  Reducing investment and trade risks, fostering business opportunities, and/or securing long-term commodity supply  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify the reasons here. 200 character(s) maximum

Section III: How to address the problem of deforestation and forest degradation

[Q9] In your opinion, how much should the efforts to address deforestation and forest degradation be stepped up at the following levels?45  International  EU  National  Regional  Local

[Q10] In your opinion, is the current EU policy and legislative framework against deforestation and forest degradation adequate?  Yes  No  I don’t know/no opinion

[Q10.1] In your opinion, what would be the best option to step up EU action against deforestation and forest degradation?46  Better implement existing legislation and policies  Develop an initiative to create a coherent framework to address deforestation and forest degradation, including measures that support and enhance the coherence of existing commitments and initiatives by EU Member State governments, civil society and private sector  Explore possible new initiatives building on existing policies  I don't know/no opinion  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify your reply here. 200 character(s) maximum

[Q11] In your opinion, which of the following forest risk commodities should be addressed by an EU initiative against deforestation and/or forest degradation? at most 6 choice(s)  Bio-diesel  Bioethanol  Charcoal

44 Multiple options were possible. 45 Respondents could select either “considerably”, “somewhat”, “not at all”, or “I don’t know/no opinion” for each option. 46 This question was only open to respondents who answered “no” in the previous question (Q10).

 Other wood-based fuels  Cocoa  Coffee  Extractive materials  Maize  Meat (including leather)  Palm oil  Paper  Pulp  Rubber (natural)  Soy  Wood  Wood pellets  Wooden products  Other

If you selected “Other”, please mention the commodities here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q12] In your opinion, which of the following EU policy areas have the biggest potential to better address deforestation and forest degradation?47  Agriculture  Climate  Consumer  Development cooperation  Energy  Environment  Finance and investment  Foreign affairs  Human rights  Research  Trade  Other EU policy area

If you selected “Other”, please mention the policy area here. 100 character(s) maximum

[Q13] What are the most important ways of stepping up EU action against deforestation and forest degradation?48

[Q13a] Potential supply-side actions, which may include:  Support the uptake of sustainable/deforestation-free agriculture practices by stakeholders in tropical forest countries  Promote better forest law protection and land use planning, governance and law enforcement  Support forest policies, sustainable forest management, better protection, conservation and restoration of ecosystems  Strengthen forest monitoring and improve transparency and traceability in the supply chain  Promote research/innovation activities, and knowledge sharing  Work in partnership with producer countries to increase the share of sustainably produced commodities  Other

47 Respondents could select either “very important”, “important”, “relatively important”, “not important”, or “I don’t know/no opinion” for each option. 48 Respondents could select either “very important”, “important”, “relatively important”, “not important”, or “I don’t know/no opinion” for each option in all subsequent questions (Q13a, Q13b, Q13c, Q13d, Q13e).

If you selected “Other”, please specify the action here. 200 character(s) maximum

[Q13b] Potential demand-side actions, which may include:  Support deforestation commitments and national dialogues on sustainable forest risk commodities  Encourage the use of voluntary certification schemes  Encourage the consumption of sustainable and deforestation-free products through improved transparency and information  Address EU consumption of unsustainably produced forest risk commodities  Consider initiatives to promote sustainable and deforestation-free products on the EU market  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify the action here. 200 character(s) maximum

[Q13c] Potential finance and investment actions, which may include:  Increase sustainability, availability and access to finance (including to smallholders)  Increase sustainability and transparency in financing of high deforestation and forest degradation risk sectors  Improve disclosure of information on deforestation proofing in financial investments  Ensure the EU or the European Investment Bank do not, even indirectly, finance projects contributing to deforestation  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify the action here. 200 character(s) maximum

[Q13d] Potential actions on strengthening international cooperation/dialogue, which may include:  Work in partnership with consumer countries to step up action, including increasing the flow of sustainable forest risk commodities from tropical countries to the EU  Work on an ambitious multilateral agreement that could focus on or integrate deforestation and forest degradation considerations into e.g. a Convention of the Parties  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify the action here. 200 character(s) maximum

[Q13e] Potential mainstreaming actions, which may include:  Better integrate deforestation and forest degradation considerations through relevant public policies, such as public procurement and corporate social responsibility  Discourage the consumption of unsustainable and non-deforestation-free products  Better implement, coordinate and communicate actions in EU Member States  Include the issue of deforestation and forest degradation into EU trade agreements signed with tropical countries  Other

If you selected “Other”, please specify the action here. 200 character(s) maximum

Final remarks

[Q14]49 If you wish to add further information or suggestions for the initiative – within the scope of the questionnaire – please feel free to do so here. 600 character(s) maximum

Please feel free to upload a concise document such as a position paper. (This is optional and will serve as additional background to better understand your position.) The maximum file size is 1 MB Only files of the type pdf,txt,doc,docx,odt,rtf are allowed

49 This question was not numbered in the survey, but it has been numbered ‘Q14’ to make referral to this question easier throughout the report.

Annex B: Question 13 tables

Supply side actions

Table B-1 Potential supply-side actions [Q13a] according to perceived severity of the problem of deforestation and forest degradation [Q6]

Support the uptake of Promote better Support forest policies, Strengthen forest Promote Work in partnership sustainable/ forest law protection sustainable forest monitoring and research/ with producer deforestation-free and land use management, better improve innovation countries to increase agriculture practices by planning, protection, conservation transparency and activities, and the share of stakeholders in tropical governance and law and restoration of traceability in the knowledge sustainably produced forest countries enforcement ecosystems supply chain sharing commodities Other Very important 74% 81% 79% 79% 42% 69% 22% Important 19% 15% 17% 17% 40% 23% 3% Alarming Relatively important 5% 3% 3% 3% 15% 7% 1% (n=787) Not important 1% 0% 0% 0% 2% 1% 0% I don't know/ no opinion 1% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 73% Very important 66% 62% 67% 51% 34% 56% 8% Important 26% 29% 26% 36% 43% 31% 3% Serious Relatively important 5% 6% 3% 9% 18% 6% 3% (n=154) Not important 1% 1% 1% 1% 3% 3% 1% I don't know/ no opinion 2% 2% 3% 2% 2% 3% 84% Very important 13% 25% 25% 25% 25% 38% 25% Important 38% 50% 63% 13% 25% 50% 0% Moderate Relatively important 38% 25% 0% 38% 38% 13% 0% (n=8) Not important 13% 0% 13% 13% 13% 0% 13%

I don't know/ no opinion 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0% 63% Very important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% 0% Important 0% 100% 100% 100% 100% 0% 0% Negligible Relatively important 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% (n=1) Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/ no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Very important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 80% I don't Important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% know/ no Relatively important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% opinion Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% (n=5) I don't know/ no opinion 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% Note: The percentages in this table are calculated as a share of the total number of respondents having answered “alarming”, “serious”, “moderate”, “negligible” or “I don’t know/ no opinion” in Q6 (indicated as n=x).

Table B-2 Potential supply-side actions [Q13a] according to stakeholder type [Q1]

Promote better Support forest forest law policies, sustainable Strengthen forest Work in partnership Support the uptake of protection and forest management, monitoring and with producer sustainable/deforestation- land use better protection, improve Promote countries to increase free agriculture practices planning, conservation and transparency and research/innovation the share of by stakeholders in governance and restoration of traceability in activities, and sustainably produced tropical forest countries law enforcement ecosystems the supply chain knowledge sharing commodities Other Very important 63% 68% 62% 56% 35% 65% 23% Important 24% 18% 28% 26% 37% 19% 2% Company/business Relatively organisation important 5% 3% 2% 10% 18% 7% 2% (n=100) Not important 1% 2% 1% 1% 3% 1% 1% I don't know/no opinion 7% 9% 7% 7% 7% 8% 72% Very important 91% 91% 82% 100% 64% 82% 18% Important 9% 9% 18% 0% 27% 9% 0% Relatively EU farmer (n=11) important 0% 0% 0% 0% 9% 9% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 82% Very important 69% 64% 67% 69% 29% 48% 12% Important 17% 31% 26% 19% 52% 40% 14% Relatively Forester (n=42) important 14% 2% 5% 7% 14% 10% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% 2% 5% 2% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 2% 2% 2% 0% 0% 74% Very important 65% 65% 59% 68% 49% 54% 27% Important 35% 24% 35% 19% 41% 41% 3% Relatively Academic/research important 0% 8% 0% 11% 11% 3% 0% institution (n=37) Not important 0% 3% 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 3% 70% Very important 78% 78% 82% 77% 46% 67% 13% Important 16% 17% 14% 19% 37% 25% 3% Relatively EU citizen (n=580) important 3% 4% 3% 3% 13% 6% 2% Not important 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0% I don't know/no opinion 2% 1% 0% 1% 1% 1% 82% Very important 80% 75% 75% 75% 30% 60% 20% Non-EU citizen Important 10% 15% 20% 20% 45% 30% 5% (n=20) Relatively important 10% 10% 5% 5% 25% 10% 5%

Promote better Support forest forest law policies, sustainable Strengthen forest Work in partnership Support the uptake of protection and forest management, monitoring and with producer sustainable/deforestation- land use better protection, improve Promote countries to increase free agriculture practices planning, conservation and transparency and research/innovation the share of by stakeholders in governance and restoration of traceability in activities, and sustainably produced tropical forest countries law enforcement ecosystems the supply chain knowledge sharing commodities Other Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 70% Very important 77% 90% 69% 69% 36% 69% 36% Important 15% 10% 31% 26% 38% 15% 5% Environmental Relatively organisation important 8% 0% 0% 5% 21% 15% 3% (n=39) Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 3% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 3% 0% 54% Very important 47% 82% 71% 79% 15% 70% 53% Important 31% 14% 24% 16% 60% 24% 3% Relatively NGO (n=102) important 18% 4% 4% 2% 24% 6% 0% Not important 2% 0% 1% 1% 2% 1% 1% I don't know/no opinion 2% 0% 1% 2% 0% 0% 43% Very important 52% 76% 76% 52% 43% 71% 5% Important 43% 14% 10% 29% 33% 19% 0% Relatively Public authority important 5% 10% 10% 19% 24% 10% 10% (n=21) Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 86% Very important 100% 33% 33% 67% 0% 100% 33% Important 0% 67% 33% 33% 67% 0% 0% Relatively Other (n=3) important 0% 0% 33% 0% 33% 0% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 67% Note: This table presents the distribution of responses to Q13a within each stakeholder group; therefore, the percentages are calculated as a share of the size of the stakeholder group (indicated as n=x).

Demand side actions

Table B-3 Potential demand-side actions [Q13b] according to perceived severity of the problem of deforestation and forest degradation [Q6]

Support deforestation Encourage the use Encourage the consumption of Address EU consumption Consider initiatives to promote commitments and national of voluntary sustainable and deforestation-free of unsustainably sustainable and deforestation- dialogues on sustainable forest certification products through improved produced forest risk free products on the EU risk commodities schemes transparency and information commodities market. Other Very important 58% 29% 67% 79% 65% 25% Alarming Important 28% 34% 22% 15% 26% 3% (n=787) Relatively

important 10% 18% 9% 4% 7% 1%

Not important 1% 14% 1% 1% 2% 1%

I don't know/ no opinion 3% 5% 1% 1% 1% 70% Very important 38% 26% 43% 51% 44% 9% Serious Important 44% 36% 42% 26% 36% 8% (n=154) Relatively

important 11% 29% 9% 16% 15% 3%

Not important 3% 6% 2% 2% 1% 1%

I don't know/ no opinion 3% 3% 5% 6% 5% 79% Very important 13% 0% 0% 25% 13% 25% Moderate Important 25% 25% 50% 13% 13% 0% (n=8) Relatively

important 25% 63% 25% 50% 50% 0%

Not important 25% 13% 25% 13% 13% 0%

I don't know/ no opinion 13% 0% 0% 0% 13% 75% Very important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Negligible Important 100% 0% 0% 100% 100% 0% (n=1) Relatively

important 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% 0%

Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

I don't know/ no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% I don't Very important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 80% know/ no Important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% opinion Relatively (n=5) important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

I don't know/ no opinion 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 20% Note 1: The percentages in this table are calculated as a share of the total number of respondents having answered “alarming”, “serious”, “moderate”, “negligible” or “I don’t know/ no opinion” in Q6 (indicated as n=x). Note 2: The sample size for those that responded “alarming” in Q6 and “other” in Q13b is 786.

Table B-4 Potential demand-side actions [Q13b] according to stakeholder type [Q1]

Encourage the consumption Support deforestation of sustainable and Consider initiatives to commitments and Encourage the use of deforestation-free products promote sustainable national dialogues on voluntary through improved Address EU consumption of and deforestation-free sustainable forest risk certification transparency and unsustainably produced products on the EU commodities schemes information forest risk commodities market. Other Very important 51% 32% 50% 40% 40% 26% Company/ Important 32% 36% 23% 26% 33% 9% business Relatively important 9% 16% 16% 18% 12% 4% organisation (n=100) Not important 1% 8% 2% 3% 4% 1% I don't know/no opinion 7% 8% 9% 13% 11% 59% Very important 73% 45% 82% 73% 73% 27% Important 18% 27% 18% 27% 27% 0% EU farmer Relatively important 9% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% (n=11) Not important 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 9% 0% 0% 0% 73% Very important 45% 31% 38% 50% 40% 5% Important 31% 26% 45% 24% 33% 10% Forester (n=42) Relatively important 17% 38% 12% 21% 24% 2% Not important 5% 5% 2% 2% 0% 2% I don't know/no opinion 2% 0% 2% 2% 2% 81% Very important 46% 27% 57% 76% 59% 24% Academic/ Important 35% 41% 30% 14% 22% 5% research Relatively important 11% 19% 11% 8% 14% 3% institution Not important 5% 14% 0% 3% 5% 0% (n=37) I don't know/no opinion 3% 0% 3% 0% 0% 68% Very important 59% 29% 69% 82% 70% 16% Important 27% 34% 21% 14% 22% 2% EU citizen Relatively important 9% 19% 7% 3% 6% 1% (n=580) Not important 2% 12% 1% 0% 1% 1% I don't know/no opinion 3% 6% 1% 1% 1% 80% Very important 55% 25% 60% 75% 60% 20% Important 35% 40% 30% 20% 35% 10% Non-EU citizen Relatively important 0% 30% 10% 5% 5% 5% (n=20) Not important 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 10% 0% 0% 0% 0% 65% Very important 62% 33% 59% 77% 62% 41% Environmental Important 31% 31% 26% 18% 26% 5% organisation Relatively important 5% 13% 15% 5% 8% 3% (n=39) Not important 0% 21% 0% 0% 5% 0% I don't know/no opinion 3% 3% 0% 0% 0% 51% Very important 31% 16% 51% 73% 32% 64% NGO (n=102) Important 46% 33% 31% 20% 46% 0% Relatively important 20% 25% 13% 6% 13% 0%

Finance and investment actions

Table B-5 Potential finance and investment actions [Q13c] according to perceived severity of the problem of deforestation and forest degradation [Q6]

Increase sustainability, Increase sustainability and Improve disclosure of Ensure the EU or the European availability and access to transparency in financing of high information on deforestation Investment Bank do not, even finance (including to deforestation and forest degradation proofing in financial indirectly, finance projects smallholders) risk sectors investments contributing to deforestation Other Alarming Very important 49% 71% 64% 87% 19% (n=787) Important 31% 21% 26% 10% 3% Relatively important 13% 4% 6% 2% 2% Not important 2% 0% 0% 0% 1% I don't know/no opinion 6% 4% 3% 2% 76% Very important 36% 53% 36% 60% 8% Serious (n=154) Important 46% 29% 42% 18% 5%

Relatively important 10% 11% 14% 12% 1%

Not important 3% 3% 1% 1% 1% I don't know/no opinion 5% 5% 7% 8% 86% Moderate (n=8) Very important 13% 38% 13% 38% 13% Important 50% 38% 0% 0% 0%

Relatively important 25% 13% 63% 25% 0%

Not important 0% 0% 0% 13% 0% I don't know/no opinion 13% 13% 25% 25% 88% Very important 0% 0% 0% 0% 100% Negligible (n=1) Important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Relatively important 100% 0% 0% 100% 0% Not important 0% 100% 100% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no Very important 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% opinion (n=5) Important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Relatively important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 100% 100% 100% 100% 60% Note 1: The percentages in this table are calculated as a share of the total number of respondents having answered “alarming”, “serious”, “moderate”, “negligible” or “I don’t know/ no opinion” in Q6 (indicated as n=x). Note 2: The sample size for those that responded “alarming” in Q6 and “other” in Q13c is 786.

Table B-6 Potential finance and investment actions [Q13c] according to stakeholder type [Q1] Ensure the EU or the Increase sustainability European Investment Increase sustainability, and transparency in Improve disclosure of Bank do not, even availability and access to financing of high information on indirectly, finance finance (including to deforestation and forest deforestation proofing projects contributing to smallholders) degradation risk sectors in financial investments deforestation Other Very important 44% 46% 34% 47% 14% Important 40% 30% 36% 21% 4% Company/business Relatively important 5% 11% 15% 14% 1% organisation Not important 2% 1% 1% 2% 1% (n=100) I don't know/no opinion 9% 12% 14% 16% 79% Very important 64% 91% 82% 82% 9% Important 18% 9% 18% 18% 0% Relatively important 18% 0% 0% 0% 0% EU farmer (n=11) Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 91% Very important 45% 60% 40% 62% 7% Forester (n=42) Important 33% 33% 45% 24% 10% Relatively important 14% 2% 10% 10% 0%

Not important 2% 2% 2% 0% 2% I don't know/no opinion 5% 2% 2% 5% 81% Very important 43% 68% 54% 76% 11% Important 35% 19% 30% 16% 3% Academic/research Relatively important 16% 11% 14% 8% 3% institution (n=37) Not important 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 5% 0% 3% 0% 84% Very important 46% 68% 63% 90% 13% Important 33% 22% 27% 7% 2% Relatively important 13% 4% 6% 1% 2% EU citizen (n=580) Not important 2% 1% 0% 0% 1% I don't know/no opinion 6% 5% 4% 1% 82% Very important 65% 80% 75% 80% 10% Important 30% 15% 20% 15% 15% Non-EU citizen Relatively important 5% 0% 5% 5% 0% (n=20) Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 5% 0% 0% 75% Very important 44% 72% 59% 77% 31% Important 33% 21% 33% 15% 5% Environmental Relatively important 15% 3% 3% 0% 3% organisation Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% (n=39) I don't know/no opinion 8% 5% 5% 8% 62% Very important 47% 77% 67% 84% 51% Important 31% 15% 21% 10% 2% Relatively important 12% 5% 9% 3% 2% NGO (n=102) Not important 5% 0% 1% 1% 1% I don't know/no opinion 5% 3% 3% 2% 44% Very important 43% 67% 48% 71% 5% Important 52% 24% 33% 14% 0% Public authority Relatively important 0% 5% 14% 10% 5% (n=21) Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 5% 5% 5% 5% 90% Very important 67% 67% 0% 67% 33% Important 0% 33% 67% 0% 0% Relatively important 33% 0% 33% 33% 0% Other (n=3) Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 67%

Note 1: This table presents the distribution of responses to Q13c within each stakeholder group; therefore, the percentages are calculated as a share of the size of the stakeholder group (indicated as n=x). Note 2: The sample size for stakeholders belonging to the “company/business organisation” category and that provided an answer for “other” in Q13c is 99.

International actions

Table B-7 Potential actions on strengthening international cooperation/dialogue [Q13d] according to perceived severity of the problem of deforestation and forest degradation [Q6] Work in partnership with consumer countries to Work on an ambitious multilateral agreement that step up action, including increasing the flow of could focus on or integrate deforestation and forest sustainable forest risk commodities from tropical degradation considerations into e.g. a Convention countries to the EU of the Parties Other Alarming (n=787) Very important 58% 63% 18% Important 25% 24% 3% Relatively important 7% 7% 2% Not important 3% 3% 0% I don't know/no opinion 6% 4% 76% Serious (n=154) Very important 49% 42% 8% Important 32% 24% 4% Relatively important 10% 18% 2% Not important 3% 5% 1% I don't know/no opinion 6% 12% 86% Moderate (n=8) Very important 25% 13% 13% Important 50% 50% 13% Relatively important 25% 25% 13% Not important 0% 13% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 63% Negligible (n=1) Very important 0% 0% 0% Important 0% 0% 0% Relatively important 0% 100% 0% Not important 100% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 100% I don't know/no Very important 0% 0% 40% opinion (n=5) Important 0% 0% 0% Relatively important 0% 0% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 100% 100% 60% Note 1: The percentages in this table are calculated as a share of the total number of respondents having answered “alarming”, “serious”, “moderate”, “negligible” or “I don’t know/ no opinion” in Q6 (indicated as n=x). Note 2: The sample size for those that responded “alarming” in Q6 and “other” in Q13d is 786.

Table B-8 Potential actions on strengthening international cooperation/dialogue [Q13d] according to stakeholder type [Q1]

Work in partnership with consumer countries to step Work on an ambitious multilateral agreement that could up action, including increasing the flow of sustainable focus on or integrate deforestation and forest forest risk commodities from tropical countries to the degradation considerations into e.g. a Convention of the EU Parties Other Very important 60% 49% 14% Company/business Important 20% 17% 4% organisation Relatively important 6% 8% 1% (n=100) Not important 4% 9% 1% I don't know/no opinion 10% 17% 79% Very important 55% 82% 18% Important 27% 9% 0% EU farmer (n=11) Relatively important 9% 0% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 9% 9% 82% Very important 40% 43% 2% Important 36% 24% 10% Forester (n=42) Relatively important 12% 24% 7% Not important 7% 5% 2% I don't know/no opinion 5% 5% 79% Very important 62% 62% 11% Important 19% 8% 5% Academic/research Relatively important 14% 19% 3% institution (n=37) Not important 3% 5% 0% I don't know/no opinion 3% 5% 81% Very important 57% 63% 12% Important 25% 23% 3% EU citizen (n=580) Relatively important 8% 7% 1% Not important 3% 2% 0% I don't know/no opinion 7% 4% 83% Very important 55% 65% 10% Important 35% 20% 15% Non-EU citizen Relatively important 10% 10% 0% (n=20) Not important 0% 5% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 75% Very important 64% 54% 28% Important 23% 31% 3% Environmental Relatively important 5% 13% 8% organisation (n=39) Not important 3% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 5% 3% 62% Very important 55% 49% 47% Important 32% 40% 2% NGO (n=102) Relatively important 7% 4% 3% Not important 3% 6% 0% I don't know/no opinion 3% 1% 48%

Mainstreaming actions

Table B-9 Potential mainstreaming actions [Q13e] according to perceived severity of the problem of deforestation and forest degradation [Q6]

Better integrate deforestation and forest Discourage consumption of Better implement, Include the issue of deforestation degradation considerations through relevant unsustainable and non- coordinate and and forest degradation into EU trade public policies, such as public procurement deforestation-free communicate actions in EU agreements signed with tropical and corporate social responsibility products Member States countries Other Very important 61% 73% 45% 86% 20% Alarming (n=787) Important 30% 19% 41% 11% 3% Relatively important 6% 6% 11% 2% 2% Not important 0% 2% 1% 1% 1% I don't know/no opinion 2% 1% 2% 1% 75% Very important 38% 41% 36% 64% 10% Serious (n=154) Important 42% 34% 36% 24% 4% Relatively important 12% 14% 18% 6% 1% Not important 1% 6% 3% 2% 1% I don't know/no opinion 7% 6% 7% 4% 84% Moderate (n=8) Very important 13% 13% 0% 25% 25% Important 13% 13% 38% 38% 25% Relatively important 38% 50% 38% 25% 0%

Not important 13% 13% 13% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 25% 13% 13% 13% 50% Very important 0% 0% 100% 0% 100% Negligible (n=1) Important 100% 0% 0% 0% 0% Relatively important 0% 100% 0% 100% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% Very important 0% 0% 0% 0% 40% I don't know/no Important 0% 0% 0% 40% 0% opinion (n=5) Relatively

important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%

I don't know/no opinion 100% 100% 100% 60% 60% Note 1: The percentages in this table are calculated as a share of the total number of respondents having answered “alarming”, “serious”, “moderate”, “negligible” or “I don’t know/ no opinion” in Q6 (indicated as n=x). Note 2: The sample size for those that responded “alarming” in Q6 and “other” in Q13e is 786.

Table B-10 Potential mainstreaming actions [Q13e] according to stakeholder type [Q1] Better integrate deforestation and Discourage forest degradation considerations consumption of Better implement, Include the issue of deforestation through relevant public policies, such unsustainable and coordinate and and forest degradation into EU as public procurement and corporate non-deforestation- communicate actions trade agreements signed with social responsibility free products in EU Member States tropical countries Other Very important 37% 43% 35% 63% 22% Company/busin Important 32% 20% 34% 16% 3% ess organisation Relatively important 14% 13% 14% 7% 2% (n=100) Not important 3% 9% 4% 3% 1% I don't know/no opinion 14% 15% 13% 11% 71% Very important 82% 91% 73% 91% 18% Important 18% 9% 27% 9% 0% EU farmer Relatively important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% (n=11) Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 82% Very important 45% 48% 43% 69% 12% Important 36% 33% 29% 19% 14% Forester (n=42) Relatively important 14% 17% 26% 5% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% 2% 2% I don't know/no opinion 5% 2% 2% 5% 71% Very important 49% 59% 30% 73% 16%

Better integrate deforestation and Discourage forest degradation considerations consumption of Better implement, Include the issue of deforestation through relevant public policies, such unsustainable and coordinate and and forest degradation into EU as public procurement and corporate non-deforestation- communicate actions trade agreements signed with social responsibility free products in EU Member States tropical countries Other Important 30% 27% 43% 24% 3% Academic/resea Relatively important 16% 11% 22% 3% 3% rch institution Not important 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% (n=37) I don't know/no opinion 5% 0% 5% 0% 78% Very important 63% 73% 50% 86% 13% Important 29% 18% 37% 11% 3% EU citizen (n=580) Relatively important 5% 7% 10% 2% 1% Not important 0% 2% 2% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 2% 0% 2% 0% 83% Very important 65% 70% 25% 80% 15% Important 30% 20% 60% 15% 10% Non-EU citizen Relatively important 5% 10% 15% 5% 0% (n=20) Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 75% Very important 67% 62% 51% 85% 36% Environmental Important 26% 36% 44% 10% 3% organisation Relatively important 8% 3% 3% 3% 5% (n=39) Not important 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 3% 56% Very important 41% 68% 20% 78% 47% Important 51% 24% 61% 20% 2% NGO (n=102) Relatively important 7% 6% 18% 0% 1% Not important 0% 1% 0% 1% 1% I don't know/no opinion 1% 2% 2% 1% 49% Very important 52% 43% 29% 67% 5% Important 33% 52% 43% 24% 5% Public authority Relatively important 10% 0% 24% 5% 5% (n=21) Not important 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 5% 0% 5% 5% 86% Very important 33% 33% 0% 67% 33% Important 33% 0% 67% 0% 0% Other (n=3) Relatively important 33% 67% 33% 33% 0% Not important 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% I don't know/no opinion 0% 0% 0% 0% 67% Note 1: This table presents the distribution of responses to Q13e within each stakeholder group; therefore, the percentages are calculated as a share of the size of the stakeholder group (indicated as n=x). Note 2: The sample size for stakeholders belonging to the “company/business organisation” category and that provided an answer for “other” in Q13e is 99.

HOW TO OBTAIN EU PUBLICATIONS

Free publications: • one copy: via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); • more than one copy or posters/maps: from the European Union’s representations (http://ec.europa.eu/represent_en.htm); from the delegations in non-EU countries (http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/index_en.htm); by contacting the Europe Direct service (http://europa.eu/europedirect/index_en.htm) or calling 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (freephone number from anywhere in the EU) (*).

The information given is free, as are most calls (though some operators, phone boxes or hotels may charge you).

Priced publications: • via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

Priced subscriptions: • via one of the sales agents of the Publications Office of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

doi:XXXXXXX