🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify 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 complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

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

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort 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 big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."