🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking law that would help stop the global scourge of deforestation.

However, the final 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, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

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

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling 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 demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said Schally. "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 preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... 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: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."