5 Questions for Dietmar Stoian
Discussions around the EU Regulation on Deforestation-free Products (EUDR) tend to focus on one of two perspectives: Either compliance experts discussing due diligence and traceability systems, or environmental scientists examining forest definitions. Dietmar Stoian's work at the Landscape Alliance brings these perspectives together. His work integrates natural and social sciences with collaboration from the private sector and policymakers to support the transition toward deforestation-free supply chains. Ahead of the TEI Research Symposium (10–11 September 2026), we talk with him about the Regulation's evolution to date, where further research is still needed as implementation moves forward, and his expectations for the symposium.
Dietmar Stoian
Dietmar Stoian, Lead Scientist for Value Chains, Private Sector Engagement and Investments at Landscape Alliance, has over 25 years of experience in value chain research and development across Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe.
His approaches span natural and social sciences and public and private partnerships to enhance the benefits from restoration and sustainable land management for smallholders and small and medium enterprises.
His work focuses on developing portfolios of agri-food, biomass energy, and tree crop value chains at landscape level, aimed at higher economic benefits derived from agroforestry, community forestry, and sustainable food system initiatives.
1.
The TEI Research Symposium convenes ahead of the EUDR’s application from December 2026, following two postponements and a series of amendments since the Regulation was first proposed. Looking back to that original proposal: what was your initial assessment of the Regulation, and how has your view evolved since?
The objective of EUDR to reduce deforestation driven by EU consumption of seven forest-risk commodities through mandatory traceability, legality checks and deforestation-free sourcing is valid and its potential to achieve impact at scale is real. At the same time, implementation poses significant risks for smallholders and agroforestry systems. For example, satellite-based forest definitions and monitoring may misclassify complex agroforestry systems (e.g., shade-grown cocoa or coffee) as forest conversion, despite their ecological value. Although formal due-diligence responsibility lies mainly with operators, compliance costs for mapping, documentation, traceability and segregation may be transferred upstream. This can crowd out smallholders, as buyers favour larger, better-documented suppliers to reduce compliance risks and costs. The revised rules applicable from 2026/27 simplify requirements for some small operators but do not eliminate these structural disadvantages. Excluded or non-compliant producers may consequently divert commodities to less demanding markets, weakening the EUDR’s global deforestation impact while fragmenting value chains. Smallholders may face lower prices, reduced market access, less incentives to maintain agroforestry systems and, ultimately, negative livelihood impacts. Going forward, there is further need to adapt EUDR requirements to the realities of smallholder livelihoods and their production systems. Capacities and resources of midstream and downstream value chain actors for EUDR compliance are less constrained and can be leveraged accordingly.
2.
Your work at Landscape Alliance bridges natural and social science and involves close engagement with the private sector, which is responsible for EUDR compliance. Based on that experience, how would you assess the private sector’s current level of preparedness, and where do you see the greatest need for further support?
Private-sector preparedness for EUDR remains uneven across value chain actors and segments. Smallholders and cooperatives in producer countries are generally least prepared, particularly farmers working independently and those in informal or fragmented value chains. Key gaps concern farm geolocation, traceability, legality/tenure documentation, data quality and digital capacity. Cooperatives are better positioned to aggregate data but often lack technical (data) systems and finance. Their greatest need is targeted technical and financial support for inclusive farm mapping, traceability, and data management, with the aim to avoid smallholder exclusion.
Producer-country SMEs, exporters and larger companies are more advanced, especially vertically integrated firms, with some already piloting traceability systems and shipment-level compliance. Smaller firms remain constrained by costs and interoperability. Their priority is integrating reliable producer-level data into scalable, interoperable compliance systems. Large companies sourcing mainly from smallholders, particularly cocoa and coffee, can build on proprietary databases with farm-level information including geo-referenced data. Depending on the commodity, businesses complying with voluntary sustainability standards (e.g., FSC, RSPO) are in a better position to comply with EUDR requirements.
EU importers and downstream companies are comparatively better prepared than their business partners in producer countries, with larger firms investing in due-diligence systems. As recent simplifications have substantially reduced downstream obligations, their main need is reliable, verified upstream data and continued operational guidance on risk assessment, data exchange, and the EUDR Information System. Still, these companies need to become better prepared to share upstream compliance costs with more resource-constrained business partners in producer countries.
3.
As implementation moves forward, it will likely continue to evolve in response to emerging data and the practical realities faced by producer countries and companies. In your view, what should receive particular attention or further research during this phase, to ensure implementation remains effective over time?
As EUDR implementation advances, particular attention should be given to whether compliance systems unintentionally exclude smallholders and cooperatives. Monitoring should assess who bears the costs of farm mapping, traceability, verification and data management; whether buyers shift sourcing toward larger suppliers; and whether smallholders lose EU market access and/or divert production to less demanding markets. Emerging evidence should also track impacts on farm-gate prices, incomes, land tenure, and livelihood strategies.
A major research priority is addressing the risk of misclassifying agroforestry systems. Satellite imagery can struggle to distinguish shade-grown cocoa, coffee or other tree-crop farms from natural forest, potentially generating false deforestation alerts and unjustified exclusion. Research should therefore improve remote sensing methodologies through field validation and locally calibrated datasets. This includes research on the design and application of digital tools for ground truthing, the use of digital communication channels (e.g., citizen science), and associated costs and effectiveness. Finally, implementation should test affordable, interoperable traceability systems and strengthen cooperatives as intermediaries for geolocation, verification, data governance and farmer support.
4.
Your research has examined both sustainable value chains and the perspectives of civil society organisations on the EUDR. What are the main concerns raised by civil society organisations regarding the EUDR, where do their views differ, and what challenges remain beyond the regulation in achieving sustainable, deforestation-free value chains?
Civil society organisations broadly support the EUDR’s objective but warn that implementation may be inequitable and technically flawed. Key concerns are disproportionate compliance costs and exclusion of smallholders, insecure tenure and limited producer-country ownership and participation, geospatial errors, and a forest/non-forest dichotomy that can misclassify agroforestry and mixed-use systems. There are concerns that misclassification could incentivise farmers to reduce tree cover and that trade may shift toward less-regulated markets or ecosystems.
Views differ mainly in emphasis. Environmental campaign NGOs (e.g., Global Witness, Fern) strongly oppose further delays or weakening, prioritising robust enforcement. Producer-country, smallholder and rights-focused organisations place greater weight on the need for technical and financial support, ownership and participation, land rights, and inclusive traceability. Some smallholder organizations see EUDR as an opportunity for enhancing governance and market access, while others fear crowding-out.
Beyond EUDR compliance, sustainable, deforestation-free value chains require secure tenure and Indigenous rights, equitable sharing of information, benefits and risks among value chain actors (e.g., through commitment to living incomes, fair purchasing practices, and embedded services), stronger domestic governance, better integration of technical, business and financial services, inclusive traceability, landscape-level approaches, and engagement and action in non-EU markets to prevent leakage.
5.
Turning to the symposium itself: what outcomes are you hoping it will generate, both for the research community and for policy makers taking part?
I would expect a better, shared understanding of the opportunities and challenges linked with the implementation of EUDR, particularly those facing smallholders, cooperatives and agroforestry systems, and the preparation of a common ground for further engagement beyond the symposium. On the part of policy makers, I would hope for increased awareness of what needs to be done in both producer and consumer countries to ensure EUDR preparedness among diverse value chain actors, sound monitoring, hands-on research, and effective learning based on emerging findings, as well as adequate allocation of resources toward these ends.
