🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering regulation that would combat the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category 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 “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes 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 big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."