🔗 Share this article

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

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities 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.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling 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 demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, 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 environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• 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 – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

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

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated 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

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important law."