🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel 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, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

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

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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