🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines 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, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, 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 environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying 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 conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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