🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders 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 less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," said 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 supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."