🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking law that would combat the worldwide 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 alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products 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 make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

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

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

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

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges 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."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," stated 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."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."