🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking law that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities 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 make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text 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, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

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

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes 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 opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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