🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

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

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape 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 rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting 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 submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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