Will COP30 pay the price for EU's climate rollback?

• Industry dilutes EU's green agenda
• Campaigners fear knock-on effect at COP
• Big players have weakened hands at Brazil summit

BRUSSELS - The European Union (EU) is tainting its green credentials with a deregulation drive that has watered down progressive laws ahead of this week's U.N. COP30 climate summit, policy analysts warn.

Several EU laws that were designed to reduce Europe's role in driving deforestation and greenhouse gas emissions have been hit with delays and limitations.

Just days before the summit, the EU diluted its climate-change target in a flurry of last-minute negotiations, leaving the door open for a further relaxing of targets down the road.

Critics say the EU - which wants to cut red tape to boost business - couldn't have chosen a worse time given the bloc was expected to play a crucial role at COP after U.S. President Donald Trump dismissed climate change as a "con job", dumped the Paris accord and kept top officials away from the Brazil talks.

But the bloc now faces a credibility gap, according to green campaigners - just what COP didn't need days before world leaders descend on Brazil for the climate talks.

Here's what you need to know:

Which laws have been revised and why is it happening now?

Agreed in 2022, the EU's deforestation regulation aimed to prevent companies selling commodities - from coffee to palm oil - into the EU market if they had links to deforestation.

But the process has hit delays after companies and governments lobbied EU officials to ease the administrative burden, and will finally take effect in December with reduced reporting obligations for smallholders.

The EU's corporate sustainability law, another hotly contested part of the bloc's green agenda, would make firms clean their supply chains of human rights and environmental abuses, or face fines of up to 5% of global turnover.

EU lawmakers have sought to jumpstart economic growth by paring back the number of companies subjected to the rules, but critics have warned it could gut corporate accountability.

Environmental campaigners have also raised concerns about the EU-Mercosur trade deal agreed in September, which aims to lower tariffs between the EU and Latin America countries but has environmental safeguards which green politicians say lack teeth.

Why does this matter in the run-up to COP30?

Known as the "Brussels effect", the EU's policies can influence global norms, financing and negotiation dynamics.

Due to the bloc's market size, corporations often extend EU policies globally.

The EU move also risks encouraging other countries to dilute their own green ambitions in a dangerous diplomatic ripple, according to research group Climate Action Tracker.

The group pointed to Australia, which has cited Europe's weak emissions reduction range to justify its own newly lowered target for limiting global warming to 1.5 degrees Celsius.

Critics say EU inconsistency means it could forfeit the ability to push countries such as China to pursue stronger ambitions, according to climate change think-tank E3G.

Green politicians point to the bloc's spat with Beijing over competing plans to tackle planet-heating emissions.

The EU said China's pledges were "clearly disappointing"; Beijing said EU criticism revealed its "double standards" given the bloc's failure even to submit its climate plan on time.

How might this affect deforestation in the Amazon?

Under the EU-Mercosur deal, environmental groups say that increased trade in goods like beef, soy and poultry could damage precious habitats from the Amazon to the Atlantic Forest.

Countries within Mercosur are among the most affected by deforestation and campaigners estimate the deal could lead to the loss of 700,000 hectares of forest land to beef alone.

Once implemented, the EU's deforestation regulation should slow deforestation in the Amazon by banning the import of products linked to forest loss.

However, environmental campaigners say deforestation could be shifted to other fragile ecosystems not covered by the law.

(Reporting by Joanna Gill; Editing by Lyndsay Griffiths.)