🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark law that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised 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, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

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

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

A Watered-Down Law

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 final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes 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 the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties 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.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed 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 concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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