🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would help stop the global scourge of forest loss.

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

"It has been hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities 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," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened 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 Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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