🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering regulation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" 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.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities 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. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

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

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities 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 invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded 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."