🔗 Share this article

It was a pioneering regulation that would combat 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 emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations 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 put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "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 defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."