🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would combat the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" 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 goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

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 – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."