By Meine van Noordwijk, Sonya Dewi, Peter A Minang, Rhett Harrison, Beria Leimona, Andre Ekadinata, Paul Burgers, Maja Slingerland, Marieke Sassen, Cathy Watson,  Jeffrey Sayer.

Read the full paper here.

Noble initiatives advance ‘deforestation free’ trade  to protect forests from greedy hands. However, it matters how we draw the lines around ‘forest’. People easily mistake forest-like forms of agriculture, such as agroforestry (AF) to be forests when looking at satellite imagery. Maps are powerful communication tools, but it is hard to check whether they represent the definitions that underpin policies.

We found that for AF gardens  in Indonesia producing coffee, cocoa or rubber, there is a 63% probability that they are (erroneously) mapped as forest in recent maps. Similar studies exist elsewhere. Agroforestry is not easily delineated as it can take many, locally adapted, forms. Typically, AF combines  planted , naturally regenerated, or trees retained from previous land uses, without rigid spatial patterns. In Europe decisionmakers have only recently recognized agroforestry as a valid category of land use.

The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), fully operational by December 2025, will secure ‘deforestation-free’ trade based primarily on spatial data. Forest maps, as noted, are imperfect. Map errors have two consequences: (1) Deforestation-based products may still reach European markets; (2) Traders will avoid EUDR-compliant products thinking the products are ‘risky’ and may get rejected at the European borders. The second consequence harms agroforesters. The maps that EU agencies have developed to support EUDR processes claim that the world had 12% more forest in 2020 than other data sources. There is an 18% chance that a spatial unit mapped as forest is considered non-forest in other data. As far as we can judge, a substantial part of the discrepancy is tree cover used in  agroforestry. Forest definitions prevailing in producing countries may imply a clearer recognition for agricultural use of trees outside forests.

We expect that decisions to reject shipments with AF products will be challenged in courts. Data sources beyond direct earth observation will be needed, to legally establish that AF farms (established before 2021) are a valid source of EUDR-compliant commodities. We argue that avoiding collateral damage to agroforestry farmers by current  ‘deforestation-free’ policies is (at least a moral) responsibility for those developing  forest protection policies.