The EUDR is already having an impact – but considerable awareness-raising remains to be done
12 dezembro 2024
Sadly, a company that acts with nonchalance in the absence of authorisations is nothing unusual. What is more remarkable, is when learning that it will not be able to sell the proceeds of its activities on the EU market brings about a radical change in behaviour. The small victory of Cameroonian communities against a rubber company indicates that the effects of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) are already being felt on the ground. The situation also points to a gaping hole, both in the EU and in producer countries, in awareness of the EUDR’s obligations, as well as the dilemma that remains to resolve for the communities concerned.
In this case, the RubberCam company was engaged in a dispute for eight years with members of local communities in the southern Cameroon region. This did not prevent it from clearing 1,200 hectares (ha) of forest (out of a total of 1,500 ha) – without land title or authorisation – to plant rubber trees and plantains. A recent mission from the Ministry of Land Affairs found that the necessary documents were lacking; although an application had been submitted, the company had not waited for authorisation.
A community leader took early retirement from the army to lead the opposition to RubberCam’s project; the conflict divides the population between the elites who benefit from the company’s presence, and people who would like to control their traditional lands themselves, or who are simply unaware of the missing authorisations.
Called on to help, the Cameroonian NGO Centre pour l’Environnement et le Développement (CED), supported the opposition’s effort by pointing out that rubber is covered by the EUDR, which prohibits the sale on the EU market of commodities – rubber, cocoa and others – produced on land cleared after 31 December 2020, as in the present case. Although the director is French, the company’s executives were unaware of the EU Regulation and the deadline.
And that was the last straw: the company decided to pack it in. Their activity was allegedly illegal without the EUDR’s involvement, but the EUDR proved to be the deciding factor.
Going forward, possibilities have opened up, already a positive result for the communities affected. Some individuals see this as an opportunity for the communities to reclaim the land and “build a win-win partnership with the Cameroonian state”. These lands are also coveted by the communities’ elites.
One thing is certain: the lands remain cleared. They were replanted with a product that cannot be sold in the EU, even if the communities manage to find someone to finance the high cost of harvesting. Conversion/replanting would also be costly.
This situation is undoubtedly being repeated, theme and variations, throughout the world. Samuel Nguiffo, of CED, sees it as a time bomb: he is especially worried about vulnerable small-scale producers who, in the two or three years’ time until the plants mature, will despair on discovering that their expected income has evaporated and their investment of work and money is lost.
While we can applaud the impact of the EUDR on the ground and the cases where disputed land is rightly returned to the hands of local communities, we must admit that the entire benefit of the Regulation lies in its incentive to avoid forest clearance, and to avoid the disarray of local communities who then must cope with the problems that arise in the wake of ill-informed companies. In this case, a solution must be worked out between communities and the State; but the EU must also be aware of this and take action to prevent untenable situations for communities. A vast awareness-raising campaign is necessary.
Samuel Nguiffo, Director of Centre pour l'Environnement et le Développement (CED)
Categorias: News, Forest Watch, Partner Voices, EU Regulation on deforestation-free products, Cameroon