🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark law that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products 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.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from 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, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, 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 came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said 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 big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important law."