🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering piece of legislation that would combat the global scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint 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 EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law required companies to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in 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 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 downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."