🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable 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. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

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

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

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

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "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

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."