🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, 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 made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, 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 less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped 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 companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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