EU Deforestation Law Largely 'Dismantled' After Initial Fanfare

It was a groundbreaking law that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders 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, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of 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 deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the law required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

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

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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