EU Deforestation Law Largely 'Watered Down' Despite High Hopes

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the global scourge of forest loss.

But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups 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 environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

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

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."