🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to 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, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," 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."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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