🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, 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.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."