🔗 Share this article

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

However, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians.

"The regulation was hollowed out," stated the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee.

He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action.

A Watered-Down Law

Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as 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 EU citizens who supported an initiative 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 most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.

In its first draft, the law required companies to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

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

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

"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions was opened for next spring.
• Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

"Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms."

Business Frustration

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

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort 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."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important law."