🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking law that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

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

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies 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, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European 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 toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – 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 upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort 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

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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