🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark law that would combat the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition 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, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources 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 big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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