🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking law that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

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

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."