🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would combat the global scourge of forest loss.

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

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies 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 imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – 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 European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities back 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 explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• 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.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."