🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

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

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the most ambitious law proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

Originally, the law required companies to track goods to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, 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 commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established 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," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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 complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

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 ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."