EU Anti-Deforestation Law Effectively 'Watered Down' Despite High Hopes

It was a landmark piece of legislation that would combat the global scourge of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

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

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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 preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."