🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

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

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European 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 Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

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 key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."