🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking law that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

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

"The regulation was gutted," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative 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 proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

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

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense 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

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort 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 supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback 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 regulation."