🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would curb the global scourge of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP 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 EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious 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 environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms 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 hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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 outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation 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 four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."