EU Deforestation Law Effectively 'Watered Down' After High Hopes

It was a pioneering piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."