🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the toughest legislation ever put forward to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "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, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

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