Progress on Bipartisan Policy to Tackle Global Deforestation: The FOREST Act and Its Role in Supporting Brazil’s Zero Deforestation Goals

Introduction

Global deforestation, driven primarily by agricultural expansion for commodities like cattle, soy, palm oil, and cocoa, is a critical driver of climate change, biodiversity loss, and human rights abuses. The United States, as one of the world’s largest consumers of these commodities, plays a significant role in this crisis, with imports linked to 123,000 hectares of tropical deforestation between October 2021 and November 2023, equivalent to the size of Los Angeles. To address this, the Fostering Overseas Rule of Law and Environmentally Sound Trade (FOREST) Act, a bipartisan legislative proposal, was reintroduced to the U.S. Congress on November 30, 2023, aiming to restrict imports of products derived from illegally deforested land. This analysis explores the progress of the FOREST Act, its key provisions, challenges, and potential to support Brazil’s ambitious goal of achieving zero illegal deforestation by 2030, particularly in the context of the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).

Brazil, a major exporter of beef and soy, faces significant deforestation pressures in the Amazon and Cerrado biomes, with cattle ranching and soy cultivation driving 95% of non-compliant deforestation. The FOREST Act, alongside the EUDR, could complement Brazil’s environmental policies by incentivizing sustainable practices and enhancing global market competitiveness. However, differences in scope, political challenges, and implementation hurdles must be addressed to maximize its impact. This report critically examines the Act’s development, stakeholder support, and its alignment with Brazil’s deforestation goals, offering recommendations to strengthen its effectiveness.

Background and Development of the FOREST Act

Initial Introduction (2021)

The FOREST Act, formally titled the Fostering Overseas Rule of Law and Environmentally Sound Trade Act, was first introduced in October 2021 during the 117th Congress by Senator Brian Schatz (D-HIeneuve Sponsored by Senators Schatz, Chris Murphy, Sheldon Whitehouse, Martin Heinrich, Cory Booker, Jeff Merkley, Chris Coons, and Elizabeth Warren, and Representatives Earl Blumenauer, Brian Fitzpatrick, and others, the bill aimed to prohibit U.S. imports of commodities—palm oil, soybeans, cocoa, cattle, rubber, and wood pulp—produced on illegally deforested land. It sought to build on the Lacey Act, which restricts trade in illegally sourced wildlife and timber, by addressing agricultural commodities linked to deforestation.

Despite bipartisan support and endorsements from over 40 environmental, human rights, and anti-corruption organizations, the 2021 bill failed to advance due to insufficient congressional backing, reflecting political divisions and concerns about trade impacts. The lack of progress highlighted the challenge of balancing environmental goals with economic interests, particularly in a polarized Congress.

Reintroduction (2023)

On November 30, 2023, the FOREST Act was reintroduced in the 118th Congress by Senators Schatz and Mike Braun (R-IN), and Representatives Blumenauer and Fitzpatrick, with revisions to address earlier criticisms and broaden support. The reintroduction coincided with growing global momentum to curb deforestation, following the EU’s adoption of the EUDR in June 2023, which bans imports of products linked to deforestation (legal or illegal) after December 31, 2020. The revised bill retained its core focus on illegal deforestation but introduced changes, such as enhanced enforcement mechanisms and technical assistance for producer countries, to improve its feasibility.

The reintroduction garnered support from environmental groups (e.g., WWF, Friends of the Earth, Climate Rights International), major food companies (Nestlé, Unilever, Mars), and the U.S. cattle sector, concerned about competition from Brazilian producers linked to deforestation. However, its progress remains uncertain in a divided Congress, with some Republicans, including Fitzpatrick, expressing concerns about the EUDR’s “burdensome” trade impacts, suggesting potential resistance to stringent regulations.

Key Provisions of the FOREST Act

The FOREST Act aims to curb illegal deforestation by restricting U.S. market access for high-risk commodities and promoting global cooperation. Its key provisions include:

1. Import Restrictions: The Act prohibits imports of products made wholly or in part from palm oil, soybeans, cocoa, cattle, rubber, and wood pulp produced on land illegally deforested after the law’s enactment. Importers must certify compliance through due diligence, with U.S. Customs and Border Protection denying entry to non-compliant goods.
2. Risk-Based Framework: The U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) will publish and annually update lists of covered commodities and countries at high risk of illegal deforestation. Importers must provide supply chain transparency and reporting to mitigate risks.
3. Technical and Financial Assistance: The Act provides funding to help foreign governments combat illegal deforestation, including support for monitoring, enforcement, and action plans in high-risk countries like Brazil.
4. Anti-Money Laundering Provisions: The bill amends U.S. anti-money laundering laws to include proceeds from illegal deforestation as a predicate offense, enabling prosecution of financial transactions linked to environmental crimes.
5. Procurement Preferences: It establishes a federal procurement preference for zero-deforestation products, incentivizing sustainable sourcing across government purchases.

Unlike the EUDR, which applies to all deforestation (legal or illegal), the FOREST Act focuses solely on illegal deforestation, defined by the laws of the producer country. This distinction reflects political realities in the U.S., where a broader zero-deforestation standard may face resistance due to trade and sovereignty concerns.

Alignment with Brazil’s Zero Deforestation Goals

Brazil has committed to eliminating illegal deforestation by 2030 under the fifth phase of its Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of Deforestation in the Amazon (PPCDAM) and is developing similar plans for the Cerrado. The FOREST Act can support these goals by aligning with Brazil’s environmental policies and addressing key drivers of deforestation. Below is an analysis of its potential contributions and limitations in the Brazilian context.

Opportunities for Support

1. Economic Incentives for Compliance
   The U.S. is a significant market for Brazilian beef and soy, with imports valued at over $500 million annually, much of which is linked to non-compliant deforestation. By restricting market access for products from illegally deforested land, the FOREST Act creates economic incentives for Brazilian producers to comply with the Forest Code, which mandates forest conservation on private lands. This aligns with Brazil’s efforts to strengthen enforcement through tools like the Rural Environmental Registry (CAR) and satellite monitoring by INPE (National Institute for Space Research).
2. Enhanced Traceability and Transparency
   The Act’s due diligence and reporting requirements can accelerate Brazil’s development of national traceability systems for cattle and soy. For example, Brazil’s GTA (Animal Transit Guide) system tracks cattle movements, but gaps remain in monitoring indirect suppliers. The FOREST Act’s emphasis on supply chain transparency can encourage investments in blockchain-based traceability, ensuring compliance with both Brazilian laws and U.S. import standards.
3. Support for Smallholders and Indigenous Communities
   Illegal deforestation in Brazil is often linked to land grabbing and violence against Indigenous peoples and smallholders. The FOREST Act’s technical assistance and anti-money laundering provisions can strengthen Brazil’s efforts to combat these crimes, supporting the rights of vulnerable communities. By requiring compliance with local laws, the Act reinforces protections under Brazil’s 1988 Constitution, which guarantees Indigenous land rights.
4. Global Market Competitiveness
   Compliance with the FOREST Act can position Brazilian producers as leaders in sustainable agriculture, enhancing access to premium markets in the U.S. and beyond. This aligns with Brazil’s agricultural intensification strategy, which has increased production by 385% since the 1980s with only a 32% expansion in land use, leveraging degraded pastures and double-cropping.
5. Complementary Pressure with the EUDR
   The FOREST Act complements the EUDR, which imposes stricter zero-deforestation standards on EU imports, Brazil’s second-largest market. Together, these regulations create a unified market signal, encouraging Brazil to accelerate its zero illegal deforestation target and potentially adopt broader zero-deforestation policies to maintain trade competitiveness.

Challenges and Limitations

1. Focus on Illegal Deforestation Only
   The FOREST Act’s limitation to illegal deforestation, unlike the EUDR’s broader scope, may reduce its impact in Brazil, where the Forest Code permits limited legal deforestation (e.g., up to 20% of Amazon properties). Producers operating legally under Brazilian law may still face EUDR restrictions but not FOREST Act ones, creating inconsistencies that could complicate compliance and reduce incentives for zero-deforestation practices.
2. Exclusion of the Cerrado
   The FOREST Act, like the EUDR in its current form, does not explicitly cover “other wooded lands” like the Cerrado, where 70% of EU soy import-related deforestation occurs. This gap limits the Act’s ability to address Brazil’s second-largest deforestation hotspot, undermining its support for comprehensive zero-deforestation goals.
3. Compliance Costs for Smallholders
   The Act’s due diligence requirements may impose significant costs on smallholder farmers, who produce a substantial share of Brazil’s cocoa and coffee. Without adequate financial support, these producers risk exclusion from U.S. markets, exacerbating rural poverty. Brazil’s government has limited resources to subsidize compliance, and the Act’s technical assistance funding may not suffice.
4. Risk of Trade Diversion
   If compliance proves too costly, Brazilian producers may redirect exports to less regulated markets like China, which absorbs 50% of Brazil’s soy exports. This could undermine the FOREST Act’s global impact and weaken Brazil’s incentives to reduce deforestation, particularly if U.S. market share declines.
5. Political and Sovereignty Concerns
   Some Brazilian stakeholders, particularly in the agribusiness sector, view foreign deforestation regulations as infringing on national sovereignty. The FOREST Act’s focus on illegal deforestation mitigates this by aligning with Brazilian laws, but tensions persist, especially given U.S. legislators’ own concerns about the EUDR’s trade impacts. Building trust through collaborative implementation will be critical.

Progress and Political Dynamics

As of May 2025, the FOREST Act remains under consideration in the Senate Committee on Finance and the House Committee on Ways and Means. Its bipartisan sponsorship and endorsements from diverse stakeholders—environmental NGOs, food companies, and the U.S. cattle industry—signal growing momentum. However, several factors influence its prospects:

• Bipartisan Support: The inclusion of Republican co-sponsors Braun and Fitzpatrick reflects a rare consensus on climate action, driven by concerns about unfair competition from deforested imports and consumer demand for sustainable products. However, resistance from some Republicans, who view the EUDR as overly restrictive, suggests limits to broadening the Act’s scope.
• Corporate Backing: Support from Nestlé, Unilever, Mars, and the Sustainable Food Policy Alliance strengthens the Act’s economic case, as these companies seek to align with global sustainability trends. Their influence could sway legislators wary of trade disruptions.
• Environmental Advocacy: Over 40 organizations, including WWF, Friends of the Earth, and Climate Rights International, continue to lobby for swift passage, emphasizing the Act’s role in meeting U.S. commitments to halt forest loss by 2030. Their advocacy counters agribusiness lobbying against regulatory burdens.
• Congressional Challenges: The 118th Congress remains sharply divided, and competing priorities, such as wildfire resilience (e.g., the Fix Our Forests Act, passed in January 2025), may divert attention. The FOREST Act’s success depends on securing enough Republican votes to overcome filibuster threats in the Senate.
• Global Context: The EU’s EUDR, set for enforcement in December 2025, has galvanized U.S. action to avoid lagging behind. Coordination with the EU and UK, which are developing similar policies, could enhance the Act’s impact through shared standards and data-sharing.

Implications for Brazil and Recommendations

The FOREST Act has significant potential to support Brazil’s zero deforestation goals by aligning market incentives with environmental policies, but its effectiveness depends on addressing key challenges. Below are recommendations to maximize its impact:

1. Expand Scope to Include Legal Deforestation
   To align with the EUDR and Brazil’s long-term zero-deforestation aspirations, the FOREST Act should consider a phased inclusion of legal deforestation, starting with high-risk commodities like cattle and soy. This could be politically feasible if tied to incentives like trade preferences or carbon credit programs.
2. Include the Cerrado in Coverage
   The Act should explicitly cover the Cerrado, either through an amended definition of “forest” or a separate provision for “other wooded lands.” This would address a critical gap and support Brazil’s efforts to curb savannah deforestation, particularly for soy.
3. Increase Support for Smallholders
   The Act’s technical assistance fund should prioritize smallholder farmers through grants, training, and simplified certification processes. Partnerships with Brazilian NGOs and programs like REDD+ can ensure equitable access to resources, preventing market exclusion.
4. Strengthen U.S.-Brazil Cooperation
   The U.S. should leverage the FOREST Act’s technical assistance provisions to deepen collaboration with Brazil’s Ministry of Environment and Climate Change. Joint initiatives, such as shared traceability platforms or capacity-building for IBAMA (Brazil’s environmental agency), can build trust and align standards.
5. Integrate Indigenous Voices
   The Act should restore funding for Indigenous and local communities, omitted from the 2023 version, to support their role in forest conservation. Engaging Indigenous leaders in action plan development, as Brazil has done with its PPCDAM, can enhance legitimacy and effectiveness.
6. Mitigate Trade Diversion Risks
   To prevent Brazilian exports from shifting to less regulated markets, the U.S. should coordinate with the EU and other partners to harmonize deforestation standards, creating a global market for sustainable commodities. Trade agreements with Brazil could include sustainability clauses to reinforce compliance.
7. Enhance Enforcement Mechanisms
   The Act’s anti-money laundering provisions should be paired with robust enforcement by the U.S. Treasury and Justice Departments, targeting financial flows linked to illegal deforestation in Brazil. This can deter corruption and organized crime, which fuel land grabbing.

Comparison with the EUDR

The FOREST Act and EUDR share the goal of curbing deforestation but differ in scope and approach, with implications for Brazil:

• Scope: The EUDR covers all deforestation (legal or illegal) post-2020, while the FOREST Act targets only illegal deforestation, aligning with Brazilian laws but limiting its environmental impact.
• Commodities: Both cover cattle, soy, palm oil, cocoa, and rubber, but the EUDR also includes coffee, and its scope may expand to other wooded lands. The FOREST Act’s narrower focus excludes coffee and the Cerrado.
• Implementation: The EUDR requires geolocation and satellite-based verification, imposing stricter due diligence. The FOREST Act’s risk-based framework is less prescriptive, potentially easing compliance but risking loopholes.
• Support for Producers: The EUDR’s Article 30 provides cooperation mechanisms, similar to the FOREST Act’s technical assistance, but the EU has committed €70 million for producer countries. The FOREST Act’s funding scale remains unclear.

For Brazil, the EUDR poses greater compliance challenges due to its zero-deforestation standard, but it offers stronger incentives for systemic change. The FOREST Act, by focusing on illegal deforestation, is more immediately compatible with Brazil’s Forest Code and enforcement capacity, making it a practical step toward zero illegal deforestation by 2030. However, its limitations risk partial alignment with Brazil’s broader environmental ambitions unless amended.

Broader Global Implications

The FOREST Act’s progress reflects a growing global consensus on demand-side measures to combat deforestation, as seen in the EU, UK, and proposed state-level laws in California and New York (though vetoed due to small business concerns). If passed, the Act could:

• Set a Precedent: As the first U.S. federal law targeting commodity-driven deforestation, it would signal leadership in climate and biodiversity governance, pressuring other consumer nations like China to adopt similar measures.
• Reduce Emissions: By curbing illegal deforestation, the Act could reduce the 2.7 gigatons of CO2 equivalent emitted annually from such activities, contributing to the 1.5°C climate target.
• Protect Biodiversity: With 40% of tropical deforestation linked to illegal clearing, the Act could safeguard habitats for 80% of amphibians, 75% of birds, and 68% of mammals.
• Support Human Rights: By addressing corruption and violence tied to deforestation, the Act could protect Indigenous peoples and environmental defenders, who faced half of documented human rights killings in 2019.

For Brazil, global coordination through the FOREST Act and EUDR could amplify domestic efforts, creating a virtuous cycle of policy reinforcement. However, the Act’s success depends on navigating U.S. political dynamics and ensuring equitable implementation in producer countries.

Conclusion

The reintroduction of the FOREST Act in November 2023 marks significant progress toward bipartisan U.S. policy to tackle global deforestation, with potential to support Brazil’s goal of zero illegal deforestation by 2030. Its provisions—import restrictions, traceability requirements, technical assistance, and anti-money laundering measures—align with Brazil’s environmental frameworks, incentivizing sustainable practices and enhancing market competitiveness. However, its focus on illegal deforestation, exclusion of the Cerrado, and compliance burdens for smallholders limit its impact compared to the EUDR’s broader scope.

To maximize its contribution, the Act should expand to cover legal deforestation and the Cerrado, increase support for smallholders, and deepen U.S.-Brazil cooperation. Its passage remains uncertain in a divided Congress, but growing support from NGOs, corporations, and the cattle sector offers hope. By complementing the EUDR and Brazil’s policies, the FOREST Act can play a pivotal role in reducing deforestation, emissions, and human rights abuses, positioning Brazil as a global leader in sustainable agriculture. Swift action, informed by lessons from the EUDR and Brazil’s experience, is essential to ensure the Act fulfills its promise as a cornerstone of global forest conservation.

References

• Forest Trends, “Progress on bipartisan policy to tackle global deforestation,” 2023.
• Blumenauer House, “Schatz, Blumenauer, Braun, Fitzpatrick Introduce Bipartisan Legislation,” 2023.
• Congress.gov, “Text – S.2950 – FOREST Act of 2021,” 2021.
• Global Canopy, “US FOREST Act: Lack of progress leaves forests at risk,” 2024.
• WWF, “FOREST Act,” 2023.
• Climate Rights International, “United States: Bipartisan FOREST Act a Crucial First Step,” 2023.
• White & Case LLP, “US Congress Reintroduces Bill to Restrict Imports Linked to Illegal Deforestation,” 2023.
• The FACT Coalition, “Bipartisan Bill Would Give U.S. Prosecutors New Tools to Combat Nature Crime,” 2023.
• Center for American Progress, “How the United States Can Fulfill Its Critical Forest Pledges,” 2022.
• Ceres, “Ceres supports bipartisan FOREST Act,” 2024.
• Global Witness, “Tackling global forest loss: What the US can do,” 2023.
• Forest Trends, “Open Letter to the 117th Congress,” 2021.
• Congress.gov, “Summary of S.2950 – FOREST Act of 2021,” 2021.