🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – 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 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin 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," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted 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:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded 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 very important law."