🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

However, 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 significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

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

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

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

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

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