🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of products 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 hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law 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, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation 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 penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally 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 provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, 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, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."