🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the global crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU'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 original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

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

A Story of Dilution

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

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally 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, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• 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 – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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