EU Deforestation Regulation Effectively 'Watered Down' Despite High Hopes

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking law that would combat the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products 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

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" 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 demanding 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 toughest law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track goods back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, 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 preparing," said 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 major letdown."

Official Defense

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 new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important law."