🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance 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.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law proposed to fight forest loss."

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, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy 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 opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – 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 upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," 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."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."