🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking law that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance 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 make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

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

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• 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.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."