Uploaded January 2026 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Two million hectares of forest loss stopped. Not by policy. By buyer action.
Most companies still think deforestation is someone else’s problem. That assumption is about to get expensive.
My guest is Priscillia Moulin, Director of Strategy at MosaiX and a senior advisor working directly with companies, traders, and producers across high-risk commodity supply chains. Her work sits where sustainability commitments collide with real operations: traceability, supplier leverage, land use, and regulatory exposure.
The problem this episode tackles is simple and uncomfortable. Many companies talk about deforestation-free sourcing. Very few can trace beyond tier one suppliers. Fewer still understand what actually happens when forest loss is detected, or how quickly buyers can intervene when they choose to.
This matters now because regulatory pressure is no longer theoretical. The EU Deforestation Regulation may be delayed, but its requirements are not softened. Plot-level traceability, proof of legality, satellite evidence, and risk mitigation plans are becoming table stakes. Add climate risk, political interference, fragile supplier relationships, and thin margins, and deforestation becomes an operational risk, not a CSR issue.
What changed my thinking in this discussion was how often the problem isn’t technology, but judgement. Algorithms can flag land-use change. They cannot tell you whether it’s replanting or forest loss. Human validation still matters. Another uncomfortable insight: cutting suppliers loose often shifts deforestation elsewhere. Engagement, not abandonment, is what stops clearing. And perhaps most sobering of all, forest protection can fail even when companies want to do the right thing, because local politics sometimes rewards clearing over conservation.
This is for supply chain, procurement, operations, sustainability, and risk leaders who are expected to comply, deliver, and absorb shocks at the same time.
If you’re dealing with deforestation risk, traceability gaps, or EUDR pressure on the ground, I’d genuinely like to hear how you’re handling it.
🔗 Podcast website: resilientsupplychainpodcast.com
Subscribe / follow prompts
🔔 Subscribe for weekly analysis on supply chain resilience
⏱️ Chapters and timestamps below
2️⃣ 💡 Chapters / Timestamps
00:00 – Buyer leverage stopped forest loss at scale
00:45 – Why downstream companies underestimate their power
03:30 – When traceability collapses beyond tier one
07:05 – Algorithms flag risk, humans prevent mistakes
10:40 – Field verification, drones, and ground truth
14:55 – Why legality and sustainability often diverge
18:20 – EUDR’s real burden: plots, proof, and politics
22:10 – Fines, revenue risk, and false hope of delays
25:05 – Why cutting suppliers loose can worsen outcomes
29:40 – Recovery, re-entry, and rebuilding supplier trust
33:10 – The real cost of EUDR versus the cost of fines
38:05 – Forest loss as lived human impact, not abstraction
Two million hectares of forest loss stopped. Not by policy. By buyer action.
Most companies still think deforestation is someone else’s problem. That assumption is about to get expensive.
My guest is Priscillia Moulin, Director of Strategy at MosaiX and a senior advisor working directly with companies, traders, and producers across high-risk commodity supply chains. Her work sits where sustainability commitments collide with real operations: traceability, supplier leverage, land use, and regulatory exposure.
The problem this episode tackles is simple and uncomfortable. Many companies talk about deforestation-free sourcing. Very few can trace beyond tier one suppliers. Fewer still understand what actually happens when forest loss is detected, or how quickly buyers can intervene when they choose to.
This matters now because regulatory pressure is no longer theoretical. The EU Deforestation Regulation may be delayed, but its requirements are not softened. Plot-level traceability, proof of legality, satellite evidence, and risk mitigation plans are becoming table stakes. Add climate risk, political interference, fragile supplier relationships, and thin margins, and deforestation becomes an operational risk, not a CSR issue.
What changed my thinking in this discussion was how often the problem isn’t technology, but judgement. Algorithms can flag land-use change. They cannot tell you whether it’s replanting or forest loss. Human validation still matters. Another uncomfortable insight: cutting suppliers loose often shifts deforestation elsewhere. Engagement, not abandonment, is what stops clearing. And perhaps most sobering of all, forest protection can fail even when companies want to do the right thing, because local politics sometimes rewards clearing over conservation.
This is for supply chain, procurement, operations, sustainability, and risk leaders who are expected to comply, deliver, and absorb shocks at the same time.
If you’re dealing with deforestation risk, traceability gaps, or EUDR pressure on the ground, I’d genuinely like to hear how you’re handling it.
🔗 Podcast website: resilientsupplychainpodcast.com
Subscribe / follow prompts
🔔 Subscribe for weekly analysis on supply chain resilience
⏱️ Chapters and timestamps below
2️⃣ 💡 Chapters / Timestamps
00:00 – Buyer leverage stopped forest loss at scale
00:45 – Why downstream companies underestimate their power
03:30 – When traceability collapses beyond tier one
07:05 – Algorithms flag risk, humans prevent mistakes
10:40 – Field verification, drones, and ground truth
14:55 – Why legality and sustainability often diverge
18:20 – EUDR’s real burden: plots, proof, and politics
22:10 – Fines, revenue risk, and false hope of delays
25:05 – Why cutting suppliers loose can worsen outcomes
29:40 – Recovery, re-entry, and rebuilding supplier trust
33:10 – The real cost of EUDR versus the cost of fines
38:05 – Forest loss as lived human impact, not abstraction
