🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would curb the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly 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 law required companies to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"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

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."