🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, 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, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."