🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would help stop the global scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains 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, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting 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 exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."