🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president 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 is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

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

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, 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 invested significant resources into preparing," said 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."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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