🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

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

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

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

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."