🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

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

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash 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 less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• 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 a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."