🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

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

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"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 trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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