🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – 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 goods linked to forest destruction.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"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 stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted 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.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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 preparing," said 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 defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important law."