🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, 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 criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally 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 Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

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

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed 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 – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

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

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