🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating 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

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."