🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

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

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

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

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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

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

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – 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 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," 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

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."