🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

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

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources 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 major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."