🔗 Share this article

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

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – 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 EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

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

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "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 Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties 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 has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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 could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."