🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark law that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to 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.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms 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 hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, 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 came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed 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 may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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