🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would combat the global crisis of forest loss.

However, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing 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.

Schally cautioned 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 Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced 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 mandated that firms to track goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable 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 explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," 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

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."