🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

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

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

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

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, 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 put a lot of effort into preparing," said 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."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."