🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace 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.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

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

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"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 major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."