🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of products 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

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

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 rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their exact plot of land 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. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," 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

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."