🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would curb the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union'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 alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

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

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official 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."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

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 created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented 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 businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."