🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, 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 significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital 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, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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