🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including 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 EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions 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," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration 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

A commission spokesperson 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 provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."