🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

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

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

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

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said 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 largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, 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 preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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