🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, 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.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

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," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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