🔗 Share this article

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

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

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

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

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

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

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

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

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."