🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would combat the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling 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 hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" 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. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," 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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."