🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, citing 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.

He warned 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 vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

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 drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" 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 stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

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," stated 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, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."