🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" 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 prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," 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

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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