🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check 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 imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy 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

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

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

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."