🔗 Share this article

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

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 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 fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to track commodities 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.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated 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

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important law."