🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

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

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

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

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

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• 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.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important law."