🔗 Share this article

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

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

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

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established 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 stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated 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."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."