🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would help stop the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, 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 came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators 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 – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating 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 big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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