🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would help stop the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," said Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check 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 imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

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

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, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

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

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• 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 the strictest monitoring.

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

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed 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 may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important law."