🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

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

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace goods back to their exact plot of land 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 said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions 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 big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."