On November 14, 2024, the European Parliament voted to delay the implementation of a significant anti-deforestation law, which aims to ban the sale in Europe of cocoa, soy, and palm oil sourced from deforested land.

This decision followed an alliance between right and far-right parties, resulting in a one-year postponement of the legislation originally set to take effect in December 2024.

Concerns from the agribusiness sector have been raised regarding the additional costs for farmers and the challenges of proving the traceability of imported products.

The weakening of this law, part of the EU's Green Deal, signals a troubling shift in environmental policy, as it has been supported by right-wing and far-right factions in the European Parliament.

Anna Cavazzini from the Greens warned that these new provisions could harm biodiversity by permitting destructive practices under the guise of compliance.

This vote occurs amid ongoing discussions at COP29 regarding climate change, highlighting a contradiction as global forest destruction continues to escalate.

The voting process was marred by technical issues, raising questions about the legitimacy of the results, which Parliament President Roberta Metsola chose not to address with a re-vote.

Critics, including environmental organizations like WWF and Greenpeace, have condemned the delay, arguing it could grant a free pass to EU forested countries and provoke backlash from non-EU producers.

With over 100 million hectares of forests lost globally in the past two decades, the urgency for effective protective measures against deforestation has never been more critical.

Environmental groups view this legislation as crucial for setting a global precedent in combating deforestation, despite facing pushback from various stakeholders.

The delay complicates compliance for companies that had prepared for the law's original enactment in 2025, potentially creating significant operational challenges.

Amendments to the law have introduced a new category of 'low-risk' countries, which critics argue could weaken the regulation and allow deforestation-linked trade to go unchecked.