🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback 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 successfully implement this very important law."