🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark law that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the law required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

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

Experts cite last year's European Parliament 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," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed 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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."