🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

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

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

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

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."