🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

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 "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, 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 environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established 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," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."