🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance 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

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• 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.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort 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 major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."