🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would combat the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance 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 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 paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European 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 Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes 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 the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated 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 big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important law."