🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

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

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," 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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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