🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would combat the global crisis of forest loss.

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

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance 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 complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

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

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."