🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin 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 less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

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

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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 has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "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

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."