🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering piece of legislation that would curb the global scourge of deforestation.

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

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "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 supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."