🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition 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 law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced 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.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods 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.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

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

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "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 supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."