🔗 Share this article

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

However, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest 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 environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets 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 key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

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

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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