🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" 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 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

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

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."