🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "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 triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities 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 invested significant resources into complying," stated 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 big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns 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 vitally important regulation."