🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

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

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – 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."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," 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

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."