🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

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

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, 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 less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed 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 defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."