🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking law that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

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

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened 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 rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations 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.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."