🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark law that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

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 severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash 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 decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

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

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."