EU Anti-Deforestation Law Largely 'Watered Down' After Initial Fanfare

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in 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 “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."