🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician 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 stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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 preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."