🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking law that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "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 green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track goods back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

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

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators 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 – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration 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 may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."