🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking law that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

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

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing 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 EU citizens who supported an initiative 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 legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

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

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened 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 Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "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

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

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."