🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

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

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

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

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

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

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable 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 ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"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 could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."