🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

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

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

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

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

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 sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "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," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."