🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels 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 more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," 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."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."