🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

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 preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."