It was a groundbreaking law that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.
But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.
"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.
Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.
Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.
This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.
When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."
The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.
"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.
In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back 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.
"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."
However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.
Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.
"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.
The passed law includes key dilutions:
"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."
The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.
"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."
An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."
"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."
