🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a pioneering regulation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law ever put forward to fight forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to trace goods 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 said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

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

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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," 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, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important regulation."