🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies 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 complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

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

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the regulation required companies to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions 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 rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating 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 may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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