🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking law that would curb the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods 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.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

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

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."