🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

A Watered-Down Law

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

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

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

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated 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."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."