🔗 Share this article

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

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "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, 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 less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... 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: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."