🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – 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 signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, 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.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."