🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

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

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities 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 complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "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 put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."