🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

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

"It has been gutted," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

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

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism 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 provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established 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 companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."