🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would combat the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance 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.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, 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 trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, 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 rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," 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."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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