🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

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

"The regulation was gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – 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 signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, 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 ensured enforcement, established traceability, 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, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened 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," lamented Schally. "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.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," 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

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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