🔗 Share this article

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

But, the revised version of the EU'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 environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

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

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"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 opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."