🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

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

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 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 the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains 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, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders 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 stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

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

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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