🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin 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 imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

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

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation 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 two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, 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, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established 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," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, 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 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 big frustration."

Official Defense

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

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