🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the law required companies to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category 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.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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