🔗 Share this article

Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would curb the global crisis of forest loss.

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers.

"It has been hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

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

Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities 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 said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

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

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A window for further "simplifications" was established 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 rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Uncertainty for Companies

The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.

"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 major letdown."

Official Defense

An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application."

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