🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

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

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"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

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."