🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

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

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of products 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 hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of 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 combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

Originally, the regulation 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 penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

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

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."