🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was gutted," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal 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 imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, 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 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, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence 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 decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "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

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

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."