EU legislation intended to fight deforestation has been effectively ‘dismantled’ | Deforestation

It was hailed by activists around the world as a groundbreaking bill that would help end deforestation.

But when a riddled version of the EU’s deforestation regulation, once intended to be the Green Deal’s crowning achievement, finally crossed the legislative line this month, not even its architect smiled, and one politician declared it had been all but “dismantled.”

Hugo Schally, the original author of the law who has since retired from the European Commission, told the Guardian he believed it had been “gutted out” by the removal of obligations on downstream traders to verify the origin of products such as palm oil, soy, timber, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

“There will now be fewer actors with direct obligations, fewer data points throughout the value chain and less accurate source data, making enforcement and possible prosecution more difficult,” he said.

The vice-president of the Greens in the European Parliament, Marie Toussaint, went further, saying the delays, loopholes and an additional exemption for printed products – an apparent gimmick to appease President Donald Trump – amounted to a “political dismantling” of the law. She asked the commission to withdraw the proposal.

We are a far cry from the hopes of the 1.2 million European citizens who signed the petition launching the process to ban products linked to deforestation from the European market in 2020. Launching the proposal in 2021, Frans Timmermans, then European Commissioner in charge of the Green Deal, presented it as “the most ambitious… ever presented” to combat forest loss.

Four hundred and twenty million hectares of forest – an area larger than the EU itself – have disappeared since 1990, partly because of European consumption patterns. Timmermans said the bill showed “our willingness to take our ‘green talks’ on a global scale.”

But critics say the failure of the proposal shows the EU’s desire to return to green talk. The law’s adoption was twice delayed, for 12 months each time, for IT reasons, drawing condemnation even from the environment commissioner who initially oversaw it. “By reopening this case instead of resolving a simple computer problem, the commission has opened Pandora’s box,” Toussaint said.

In its original form, the law required companies to monitor their subcontractors and trace the origin of goods destined for Europe back to their land of origin, using geolocation data. The idea was to make companies that allowed deforestation throughout their supply chains liable to criminal sanctions and fines of up to 4% of their annual turnover.

“It wasn’t bureaucracy per se,” Schally said. “It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented companies from hiding behind supply chain complexity.”

However, the due diligence has sparked a backlash in Brussels, with multinationals, producing countries, right-wing parties and EU forestry states all wielding axes. Last year’s European elections were described as “a watershed moment because there is now a different majority”. [in parliament]” by Andreas Rasche, professor of sustainable development and associate dean at Copenhagen Business School. ” Conservatives in the European People’s Party (EPP) are building an alliance with far-right parties. [which] I hate the Green Deal and wish some of these regulations were completely removed. It was this alliance that passed the legislation in the European Parliament.

Intense pressure has also been brought to bear by some of the largest exporters to the EU. Rasche said: “Other pressure on deforestation regulations has come from major trading partners outside the EU – particularly the US – and there is a sense that the commission gave in to some of their demands during trade negotiations earlier this year. »

In the final legislation, downstream operators were largely freed from the obligation to submit due diligence declarations, another exemption was introduced for a category of small “low risk” operators, and a new window was opened for further “simplifications” next spring.

Meanwhile, the only countries that will be subject to “high risk” deforestation monitoring are four geopolitical adversaries of the EU: Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar.

“Instead of strengthening downstream obligations to close the loopholes, he eliminated them,” Schally said. “By shifting responsibilities upstream, creating a lighter category of ‘downstream operators’ and removing repeat certifications, it reduced the number of directly responsible companies in the system. By allowing less precise origin information for some operators, it weakened the very transparency that the regulations relied on to detect money laundering, commingling and proxy deforestation.”

Xavier Rombouts, who runs a family-owned Belgian coffee business that complied early with the EUDR regulation, said the uncertainty created by delays and revisions to the legislation had affected his business.

“We’re very annoyed because we’ve put a lot of effort into meeting it. We’ve invested in the software, gone through the seminars and built a team to put it together and now they’re saying it will be postponed again or it might be changed. It’s a big frustration.”

A commission spokesperson said: “The commission has responded to these comments and taken action to ensure simple, fair and cost-effective implementation of this key piece of legislation. The EU Deforestation Regulation has already led to positive developments and actions on the ground to tackle deforestation, climate change and biodiversity loss.”

“The new text ensures predictability in the regulatory framework, which is essential for businesses and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation. »