🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

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

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. 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.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

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

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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