🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark law that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the final 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, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

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

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

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU 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 Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort 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."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."