🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to fight deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace goods back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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