🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling 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 reopening this file 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 to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

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

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

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

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"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 big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."