🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check 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 complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician 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 hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

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

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed 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."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted 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 vitally important law."