🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance 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 complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods back 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.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Uncertainty for Companies

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," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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