🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including 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 supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "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 invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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