🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

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

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

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

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash 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 has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"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 may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."