🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the global scourge of deforestation.

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

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check 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 complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including 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.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable 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 prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

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 came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted 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 downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, 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 put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action 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 vitally important law."