🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted 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, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, 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 demands of over 1.2 million European 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 called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable 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 prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

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

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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 complying," 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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded 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 vitally important law."