🔗 Share this article

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

But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once 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 green lawmakers.

"It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

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

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products.

At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss."

From Ambition to Compromise

The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP.

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

"This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks."

Intense Lobbying

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules.

"The other pressure came from big trading partners like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations.

Key Loopholes Introduced

In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks.
• A new exemption for small operators was created.
• A option for more reductions 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 to producers, it reduced accountability."

Business Frustration

The delays and changes have also caused frustration 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 could be altered again. It’s a big frustration."

The Commission's Stance

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation."

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