🔗 Share this article

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

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category 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 “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."