🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace 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 explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category 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," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources 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."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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