European Neighbourhood Monitor

Online magazine highlighting research, news and analysis covering the European Neighbourhood

EU-US Framework Agreement Eases New EU Deforestation Rules

/ Trade / By

In a significant development for transatlantic trade and environmental policy, the European Union has formally recognized that “production of the relevant commodities within the territory of the United States poses negligible risk to global deforestation”, according to a joint framework agreement publicly released by the White House on August 21. This acknowledgment represents a strategic concession within a broader trade framework crafted to promote reciprocal, fair, and balanced economic engagement between the U.S. and EU.

Deforestation Regulation: U.S. Commodities Granted Preferential Treatment

The new framework explicitly addresses the EU’s anti-deforestation regulation. In a carefully worded passage, it states:

“Recognizing that production of the relevant commodities within the territory of the United States poses negligible risk to global deforestation, the European Union commits to work to address the concerns of U.S. producers and exporters regarding the EU Deforestation Regulation, with a view to avoiding undue impact on U.S.–EU trade.”

This follows an earlier move by the European Commission in May, at the request of the U.S., to categorize U.S. imports as “low risk” under the EU Deforestation Regulation—effectively easing regulatory burdens on American exports of cocoa, coffee, soy, palm oil, beef, and other commodities.

Broader Trade Liberalization under the Framework

Beyond deforestation policy, the joint statement sets out an expansive package of trade and investment measures designed to deepen transatlantic economic ties.

Under the deal, the European Union will remove all tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and grant broader market access to a range of American seafood and agricultural products. These include tree nuts, dairy items, fresh and processed fruit and vegetables, processed foods, planting seeds, soybean oil, pork, and bison meat. An earlier bilateral lobster agreement, which expired in July, will be reinstated and expanded to cover processed lobster.

In return, the United States will apply either its existing Most Favoured Nation (MFN) tariff rate or a combined 15 per cent rate—whichever is higher—on imports from the EU. From 1 September 2025, certain EU exports such as cork, aircraft and their parts, and generic pharmaceuticals will face only the MFN rate, avoiding any extra duties.

The agreement also caps the total duty on EU pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber, and automobiles at 15 per cent when Section 232 tariffs are applied. For EU automobiles and parts, no additional duties will be charged if the MFN rate is already 15 per cent or higher; if lower, it will be increased to that level.

Both sides pledged to coordinate efforts to shield their steel and aluminium industries from global overcapacity, using tariff-rate quotas and other joint measures. They also agreed to reduce non-tariff barriers by recognising each other’s automotive standards, simplifying sanitary certification for agricultural products such as pork and dairy, and stepping up cooperation on technical standards.

On energy and investment, the EU has committed to purchasing up to USD 750 billion worth of U.S. liquefied natural gas, oil, and nuclear energy through 2028, as well as at least USD 40 billion in American-made artificial intelligence chips. European companies are expected to invest an additional USD 600 billion in strategic sectors in the United States.

The agreement also contains a defence component, with the EU signalling plans to significantly expand procurement of U.S. military and defence equipment—moves aimed at reinforcing both strategic alignment and NATO interoperability.

Reactions and Implications

By granting U.S. commodity exports a near “negligible risk” designation—and pledging to address deforestation-related concerns—the EU has offered a policy carve-out that may pave the way for similar calls from other trading partners. Critics argue this risks undercutting the consistency of the EU’s environmental agenda, particularly if such flexibility becomes politically motivated rather than based on environmental metrics.

Meanwhile, Southeast Asian producers and several EU member states have voiced dissatisfaction. They emphasize that reducing deforestation is not unique to the U.S.—Malaysia, for instance, reported a 13% drop in deforestation last year—even as their exports remain classified as “standard risk.” Between 2015–2017 and 2020–2022, the country cut its rate of primary forest loss by 57%.

In fact,  a growing chorus of critics is pointing to glaring inconsistencies in how the EU’s Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) classifies countries’ environmental risk. The most striking examples emerge when actual deforestation rates are compared to the EU’s official risk labels. Malaysia, for instance, is ranked as “medium risk,” even though recent data shows its record is stronger than that of some EU member states. According to Global Forest Watch, Malaysia lost just 0.56% of its remaining primary forest in 2024—less than Sweden’s 0.87% loss. Sweden holds the largest share of ‘old growth’ forest in Europe, with 70% of its landmass still forested, yet it is clearing these ancient woodlands at a faster pace than the Amazon rainforest. Despite this, Sweden automatically qualifies for “low risk” status by virtue of being an EU member.

Neighbouring Finland has faced its own controversies, including €7 billion in EU fines for deforestation, yet it too enjoys the benefits of internal market classification rules. Critics say this discrepancy is no accident but a structural flaw in the EU’s methodology. The European Commission’s risk assessment relies on “total forest cover” data from 2015–2020, making no distinction between primary forests—ancient and irreplaceable—and managed secondary growth or monoculture plantations. This approach allows countries that have replaced biodiverse old-growth ecosystems with uniform plantations to maintain a favourable status, while penalising nations that have preserved significant tracts of untouched forest.

Environmental analysts argue that the EUDR’s reliance on outdated metrics fails to reflect rapidly changing realities. They warn that “ancient forests cannot be saved with ancient data.” A modern benchmarking system, they say, should be built on up-to-date satellite monitoring of primary forests, rather than broad, years-old “total forest cover” figures that can mask ecological degradation behind superficially stable numbers. Without such changes, critics contend, the regulation risks rewarding paper compliance while ignoring genuine conservation success.

Furthermore, eighteen out of twenty-seven EU member states have called for further adjustments to the anti-deforestation regulation, warning that strict due-diligence obligations could be unworkable and distort competitiveness—potentially incentivizing companies to relocate operations outside the EU. For them, the asymmetry in classification appears both unfair and impractical.

A Recalibration of Transatlantic Trade Policy

The framework signals a substantial recalibration of transatlantic trade policy. Removing tariffs on U.S. industrial goods and agricultural commodities reinforces mutual market access. Additionally, the volume of planned energy purchases and investments reflects deepening economic interdependence, while the mutual defense procurement commitments underscore a strategic dimension to the agreement.

The August 21, 2025, Framework Agreement between the U.S. and the EU marks a pivotal moment in setting directions for future trade relations. By addressing deforestation concerns specifically in the context of U.S. commodity production, the pact introduces significant policy flexibility—an approach that may influence broader debates over environmental trade standards. Simultaneously, the sweeping tariff concessions, investment pledges, and strategic cooperation elements point toward a phase of intensified transatlantic integration.

Yet, the pact remains a framework, not a finalized treaty. Its future hinges on upcoming domestic legislative steps within the EU and U.S., as well as ongoing negotiations over rules of origin, digital trade, and other technical details. As these discussions unfold, the balance between environmental integrity, regulatory fairness, and geopolitical pragmatism will shape the sustainability and credibility of Europe’s global trade leadership.

© 2022 Copyright – All Rights Reserved by European Neighbourhood Monitor. – About | Privacy Policy