🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation 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, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – 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 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said 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 big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."