🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering regulation that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, 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 hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups 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 major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened 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 the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."