🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark law that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

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

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including 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 signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

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 a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

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