🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark regulation that would help stop the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify 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 complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, 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 green regulations.

"The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A option for more reductions 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. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort 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."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."