🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would help stop the global scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat 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 significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

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

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin 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 said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

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

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources 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."

The Commission's Stance

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

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important law."