EU Anti-Deforestation Law Effectively 'Gutted' After Initial Fanfare

Widely celebrated as a landmark law that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" 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 prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

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

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "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

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."