🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

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

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European 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 trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward to fight 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, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• 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 the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "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 defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."