🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

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

A Story of Dilution

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

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

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"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 opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, 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 has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated 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."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."