🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking law that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the final 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, prompting alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products 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 hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to 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 toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

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 reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated 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."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."