🔗 Share this article

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

However, 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 alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

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

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort 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."

Official Defense

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

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."