🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking law that would help stop 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 been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law 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 environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

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 crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."