🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark law that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

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

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

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration 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."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."