🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering regulation that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally 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 the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets 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 features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," said 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

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."