🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking law that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

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

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin 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," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

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