🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

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

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify 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 imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to combat 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 significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to track goods back to their exact plot of land 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 said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• 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.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

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," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important law."