🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

Political Dismantling

Environmental MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

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

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

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track commodities 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. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was introduced.
• A option for more reductions was established for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."

"The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important law."