🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

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

Intense Lobbying

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

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders 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 a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated 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."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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