🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, 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 ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."