🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would help stop the global scourge of deforestation.

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

"It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling 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 hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law proposed to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation.

"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law required companies to trace commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

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

"Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

In the final legislation features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• 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 “high risk” scrutiny.

"Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, 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 complying," said a coffee company executive. "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, saying: "The commission has responded 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 effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."