🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the global scourge of deforestation.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash 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 decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

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

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

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

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."