🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering regulation that would curb the global crisis of forest loss.

But, 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 significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, 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.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."