🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the global scourge of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been 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 coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes 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, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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 came from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."