🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering piece of legislation that would curb the global scourge of forest loss.

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

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the law required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

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