🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP 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 final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• 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 downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," 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 big frustration."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."