🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the global scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion 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, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – 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.

When launched 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. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

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 preparing," stated 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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."