🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated 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.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

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

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

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"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 opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators 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 the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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