🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check 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 hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track commodities to their specific geographic origin 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," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted 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 – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."