🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

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

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin 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 said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks 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 decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" 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 stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said 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: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."