🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the global scourge of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities 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 complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" 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 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense 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.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "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, saying: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."