Deforestation and international trade. Imported deforestation, a source of diplomatic controversy[La déforestation et le commerce international. La déforestation importée, source de controverses diplomatiques]

In a context of climate change that is developing more rapidly than envisaged, forests are a crucial resource: on average (with variations from one type to another), a hectare of forest filters 50 tonnes of dust per annum, stores 338 tonnes of CO2, produces 21 tonnes of oxygen and filters 1,000 cubic metres of water. Forests are also, among other things, reservoirs of biodiversity (fauna, flora and many molecules or species yet unknown). This essential role in preserving life on Earth spurs many — charitable, governmental and international — actors to combat deforestation, the most emblematic example no doubt being the protection of the Amazonian rainforest. In recent years, a number of states (UK, USA, EU) have decided to double down on their efforts by adopting more targeted measures in the battle against deforestation, in order to take account of so-called 'imported' deforestation, by which they mean the importation of raw materials or processed products that have contributed by their production, directly or indirectly, to deforestation, forest degradation or the conversion to other uses of natural ecosystems in the producing countries. However, the precise definition of deforestation as legal, imported, etc., and the way of monitoring this effectively in the producer countries are controversial questions. After reviewing the history of deforestation over recent decades, looking at where it has happened and the various facts contributing to it, Alain Karsenty examines the content of these debates. Drawing on the case of the European Regulation on Deforestation and Forest Degradation, he demonstrates the complexity of the measures intended to better regulate the international timber trade and its impact on forests, as well as the potential effects on the producers and countries concerned. In a sector that is still highly informal, it is no doubt going to be necessary to tweak the regulations somewhat to move to achieve the intended result in the fairest way possible.