🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

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

He warned 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

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

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

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• 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 “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "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, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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