🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP a leading green politician 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 stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, 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," the former official said. "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 rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators 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 a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

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

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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