🔗 Share this article

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

But, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

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

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions 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 stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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