🔗 Share this article

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

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

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

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders 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 stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."