🔗 Share this article

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

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."