🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to 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 a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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 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

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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