🔗 Share this article

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

But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products 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

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as 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 European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

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

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."