🔗 Share this article

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

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check 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 complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, 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 said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks 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 European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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 may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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