🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

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

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating 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 major letdown."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action 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."