🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods 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. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

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

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."