🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering law that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check 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 less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, 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 law required companies to trace commodities 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.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

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

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," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."