🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law ever put forward to combat 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 IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the law required companies to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, 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 ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite 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 big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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