🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

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

"It has been gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

Originally, the regulation required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges 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 prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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