🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking law that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

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

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

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

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

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

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

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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