🔗 Share this article

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

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

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on 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 combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, 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 explained. "It was the mechanism 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 the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• 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 Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," 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."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."