🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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 was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" 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 goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

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

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – 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 businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."