🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

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

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, 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, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels 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 more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

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

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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 invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

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

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important law."