🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the final 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, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

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

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, 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 made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, 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 more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened 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," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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