🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

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

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, 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 turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.

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

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."