🔗 Share this article

It was a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final 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, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 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 legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, 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 ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• 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 “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into complying," said 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, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."