🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering piece of legislation that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, 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, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – 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 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "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, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders 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 a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."