🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, 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 over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution 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 instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."