🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark law that would curb the global scourge of deforestation.

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 severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"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 stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened 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 Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."