🔗 Share this article

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

But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president 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 outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

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

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties 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, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders 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 downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

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 key for business and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."