EU Anti-Deforestation Law Largely 'Dismantled' Despite High Hopes

Widely celebrated as a pioneering law that would curb the global scourge of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify 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 make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

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 complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, 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 key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."