🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark law that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

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

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

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

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

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," 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

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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