🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking law that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, 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 initial author and environmental politicians.

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

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling 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 EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law proposed to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed 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 may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."