🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines 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 complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

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

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

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – 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 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 complying," stated a coffee company executive. "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 concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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