🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

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

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category 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 the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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 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."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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