🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark regulation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

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

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin 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.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

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

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators 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 – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

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

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