🔗 Share this article

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

However, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

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

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling 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 hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner 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 green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties 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 stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

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

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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