🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation 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 large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

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

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders 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 four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

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 revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."