🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, 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.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling 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 supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties 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.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "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 supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."