🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" 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 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 combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• 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.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."