🔗 Share this article

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

However, 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, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

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

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament 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 expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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