🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking law that would combat the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – 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 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

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

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," 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 defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."