🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking law that would help stop the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

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

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, 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 – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" 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 trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

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

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed 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 could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."