🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would combat the worldwide scourge of deforestation.

However, the revised version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of products 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 hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – 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 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the most ambitious legislation proposed to combat deforestation."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines.

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

Intense Lobbying

However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

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

"We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration."

Official Defense

An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."