🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark law that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

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

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."