🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would curb the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

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

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European 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 Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges 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."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded 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 submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating 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 big frustration."

Official Defense

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

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