🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative 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 legislation ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

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

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

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

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating 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 may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."