🔗 Share this article

It was a landmark piece of legislation that would curb the global crisis of deforestation.

But, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official 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 strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners 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:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early.

"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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