It was a landmark law that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.
But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.
"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products 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.
Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.
This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.
At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat deforestation."
The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.
"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.
In its first draft, the law required companies to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.
"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."
Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.
Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.
"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.
The passed law includes several critical weakenings:
"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."
The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.
"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."
An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."
"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."
