🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion 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 hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

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

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."