🔗 Share this article

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

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements 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

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, 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 explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration 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

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

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