🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering regulation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

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

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened 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 stripped them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

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