🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was gutted," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations 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, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

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

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains 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."

Mounting Pressure

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 European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources 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 defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."