🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

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

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... 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 concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."