🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious 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 significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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