🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

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

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on 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."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "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 strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted 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.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"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 may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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