🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark regulation that would curb the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

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

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "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

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"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 big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."