🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking law that would help stop the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

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

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features 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 four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

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 preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "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 supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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