🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president 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 stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward 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 significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."