🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law proposed to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered 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," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable 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 made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."