🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities 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," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed 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 – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded 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 law."