Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of forest loss.
But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.
"The regulation was gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.
Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.
Political Dismantling
Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.
This final text is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU 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 the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."
A Story of Dilution
The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.
"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.
In its first draft, the law required companies to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable 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 explained. "These rules were the tool 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 large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.
Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.
"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.
The Weakened Final Text
The passed law includes several critical weakenings:
- Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
- A new “low risk” category was created.
- A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
- Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.
"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."
Uncertainty for Companies
The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.
"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."
Official Defense
A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."
"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."
