🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would combat the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains 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, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources 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 big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."