🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products 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

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European 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 the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their specific geographic origin 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 ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "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

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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