🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering piece of legislation that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU 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 Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

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

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

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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 big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• 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 rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."