🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would curb the global scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," 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."

Official Defense

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

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