🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

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

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• 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 downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources 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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."