🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods back 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. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions 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," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."