🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities 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 complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, 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, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," 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 defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

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