🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text 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.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, 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 preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."