🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering regulation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

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 alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track goods back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

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

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted 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."