🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted 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 crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 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 trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

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 European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration 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 may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

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

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."