🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

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

Originally, the law required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

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

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

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

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important law."