Reaching 54% sustainability in soy sourcing is a significant step for the EU feed sector. Yet the strict requirements of the EUDR, technical constraints, and supply chain pressures raise questions about whether this progress is enough. New data shows that balancing sustainability with supply security is more critical than ever.

Europe’s livestock sector runs on imported soy – a dependency that fuels both economic vitality and environmental strain. As the newly released “European Soy Monitor - Trends and developments in sustainable soy cproduction and consumption between 2019 and 2023” reveals, the EU27+ now sources 54% of its soy through FEFAC Soy Sourcing Guidelines (SSG)-aligned channels, a significant leap from 42% in 2019. This hard-won progress arrives as the feed industry faces unprecedented pressure: Soy production devoured 12% more global land since 2019 to meet soaring demand, accelerating deforestation in critical biomes like Brazil’s Cerrado. For compound feed producers, this isn’t merely an environmental dilemma – it’s an operational tightrope. How do you balance EUDR (European Union Deforestation Regulation) compliance costs, supply chain security, and nutritional requirements while sourcing responsibly? The Monitor’s data offers both warning signs and pathways forward.

1. GLOBAL SOY & EU DEPENDENCE

The EU27+ stands as the world’s largest soybean importer and second-largest meal buyer, absorbing 35 million tons annually. This dependence leaves European pork, poultry, and dairy sectors acutely vulnerable to global shifts. Consider the forces at play:

• Global soy production hit 371 million tons in 2023 – a 10% surge since 2019, overwhelmingly driven by animal feed demand.
• A troubling 12% expansion in harvested area – not yield gains – fueled this growth, escalating risks in high-conversion regions:
• Brazil’s Cerrado saw production spike 20% (2019-2022), now supplying 44% of the country’s soy amid rapid MATOPIBA biome clearance.
• The Gran Chaco (Argentina/Bolivia/Paraguay) lost nearly 10 million hectares of natural vegetation since 2004.
• Supply volatility intensified in 2023 when Argentina’s drought-driven 43% production crash forced EU importers toward Brazilian and U.S. soy.

For feed mills, these aren’t abstract concerns. As one Dutch compounder noted: “When MATOPIBA faces logistics chaos or Argentina’s harvest fails, our formulation teams scramble overnight. Sustainable sourcing can’t ignore supply continuity.”

2. THE RISE OF RESPONSIBLE SOY IN THE EU

The leap to 54% FEFAC SSG compliance marks tangible progress, yet beneath the headline lies a mosaic of regional strategies and technical hurdles.

Drivers of Growth

Global certified soy volumes exploded by 67% (2019-2023), with notable shifts:

• Southern European mills now source more U.S. SSAP-certified (U.S. Soy Sustainability Assurance 
• Protocol) soy via traceable physical chains, aided by streamlined export documentation.
• Germany and Denmark leveraged sector-wide agreements to boost uptake.
• Established leaders like the Netherlands (90%+ compliance) and Belgium still rely heavily on credit systems for flexibility.

Technical Realities for Feed Formulators

While sustainability gains attention, soy’s technical role remains non-negotiable:

• As the primary cost-effective lysine source in poultry diets, abrupt substitution risks nutritional gaps.
• Blending certified and conventional soy in storage silos – common for cost management – complicates traceability.
• The EU’s push for domestic soy (for crop rotation and protein self-sufficiency) grows but satisfies <5% of demand.

“Credits work for ESG reports today,” admits a Belgian feed technologist, “but when EUDR requires farm-level coordinates for every ton, our blending systems need reengineering.”

3. EUDR & THE PHYSICAL CHAIN IMPERATIVE

The EU Deforestation Regulation (effective 30 December 2025) will reshape sourcing landscapes. Its core demands – plot-level geolocation and deforestation/conversion-free (DCF) verification – clash with current practices:

 Credit systems (Book & Claim): Lack farm-level traceability, jeopardizing compliance for 60-70% of today’s “sustainable” EU soy.

 Cost impacts: Traceability tech, supplier audits, and data infrastructure could add €5–15/ton, estimates an Italian feed producer.

 Supply chain redesign: Southern Europe’s SSAP physical supply chains may become a blueprint, though scaling remains challenging.

The FEFAC SSG’s 2021 update aligning with DCF criteria offers a foundation. Still, as one German feed executive warns: “Without physical traceability scaling fast, disengagement from high-risk regions becomes tempting – even if it threatens supply security.”

4. LANDSCAPE APPROACHES

As certification’s farm-level limits emerge, landscape initiatives gain traction for tackling biome-scale risks like water scarcity and habitat fragmentation. Early models like Mato Grosso’s PCI Strategy (Produce, Protect, Include) show potential:

 Multi-stakeholder coalitions unite governments, farmers, and companies across jurisdictions.

 Early wins include 300% land registration increases in target municipalities and 18% more degraded land reuse in Brazil.

Feed Industry Implications

 Opportunity: Bulk sourcing of verified DCF soy from entire regions (e.g., Cerrado Working Group).

 Financing tools: Blended models like the Responsible Commodities Facility (offering low-interest loans for preserved native vegetation) or the Amazon Fund reduce individual risk.

 Hurdles: Impact measurement remains embryonic. “We see land registered,” notes a French feed buyer, “but how many hectares of Cerrado were actually saved? That ROI uncertainty stalls boardroom approvals.”

5. ENGAGEMENT, TRANSPARENCY, & SHARED SOLUTIONS

Facing complex choices, feed producers must weigh disengagement against engagement:

• Disengagement (exiting high-risk biomes) simplifies compliance but increases supply fragility amid climate volatility.
• Engagement preserves market access to vital regions like the Cerrado (44% of Brazil’s soy) while enabling collective action.

Transparency bridges this divide:

Data gaps: Few certifications or landscapes report KPIs like hectares preserved or chemical reductions. Initiatives like AFi (Accountability Framework initiative) and SBTN (Science Based Targets for Nature) are developing validation frameworks.

Producer collaboration: Direct partnerships with Brazilian grower cooperatives can lower traceability costs versus third-party certifiers.

Regulatory advocacy: Unified industry input is critical to shape feasible EUDR implementation guidelines.

As the Monitor concludes: “Halting conversion requires enforceable laws, corporate action plans, and landscape-scale investment – not isolation.”

CONCLUSION

The 54% FEFAC compliance milestone proves Europe’s feed industry is evolving. Yet EUDR’s December 2025 deadline demands accelerated, pragmatic action:

1. Short-term: Invest in traceability systems leveraging FEFAC SSG as a DCF foundation.

2. Mid-term: Pilot landscape engagements (e.g., in Cerrado) with shared-cost financing.

3. Long-term: Champion standardized impact metrics (hectares, emissions) to validate efforts.

The cost of inaction – supply chain disruption, ecosystem collapse – dwarfs strategic investments. As the Soy Monitor underscores, the path forward isn’t sustainability or security, but sustainability through security. Feed producers hold a pivotal role in making this balance achievable.