🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering piece of legislation that would help stop the global scourge of deforestation.

But, 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, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling 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 hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

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

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land 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," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to 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 major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating 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 supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action 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 vitally important regulation."