🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check 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 make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – 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 European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

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

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

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."