🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would help stop the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities 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," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," 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

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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