🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

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

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law required companies to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties 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 opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."