🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

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

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the law required companies to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains 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."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative 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 national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."