🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

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

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come 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 includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations 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 complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."