🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative 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 legislation ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• 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 Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said 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."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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