🔗 Share this article

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

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

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

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" 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. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."