🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

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

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "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. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

Originally, the regulation required companies to trace commodities back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of green regulations.

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted 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 “high risk” scrutiny.

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

Business Frustration

The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance.

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," said Xavier Rombouts. "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 acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."