🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

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

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

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

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

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 reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "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 rigorous checks 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 EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," said 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 defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."