🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power 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 demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

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

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."