🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as 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 prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital 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.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."