🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been hollowed out," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies 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 less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their specific geographic origin 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," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," 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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."