🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence 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 turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators 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 rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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