🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking law that would curb the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"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."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."