🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative 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 law proposed to combat forest loss."

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 technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"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 prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital 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, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of 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 features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important law."