🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark law that would help stop the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

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

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

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

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace commodities 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.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence 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, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed 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 defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."