🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide 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 criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint 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 hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups 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 major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

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 complying," said 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 implementation."

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