🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would curb the global crisis 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 initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling 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 technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"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 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, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – 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 companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "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, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."