🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would curb the global crisis of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

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

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed 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 “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

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 complying," 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, saying: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."