🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering law that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, citing 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 fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

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

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, 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," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• 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 rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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 invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."