🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• 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 downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."