🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the law required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources 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 supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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