🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would combat the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned 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 MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including 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 supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable 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, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• 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 downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important law."