🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark regulation that would curb the global scourge of deforestation.

However, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European 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 the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin 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 explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," 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 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 new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."