🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

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

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU 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 trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

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

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, 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 turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• 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.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

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