🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the global scourge of deforestation.

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

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations 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 Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text 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.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

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

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."