🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been gutted," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed 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 – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson 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 ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."