🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains 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, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

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

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

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators 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 upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources 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 defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."