🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion 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 a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling 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 European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

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

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

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

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, 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 came from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators 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 a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort 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 big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."