🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering law that would help stop the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised 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 green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations 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, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, 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 demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities back 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 ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties 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 green regulations.

"Additional intense 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.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

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

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