🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking law that would help stop the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

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

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party 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 final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism 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 rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties 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.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

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," said Xavier Rombouts. "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 concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."