🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking law that would curb the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as 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 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated 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."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."