🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering regulation that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable 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 made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," 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 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 new text ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."