🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"The regulation was stripped," said Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

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

From Ambition to Compromise

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint.

In its first draft, the regulation required companies to trace commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules.

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new “low risk” category 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.

"Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "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

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

"The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."