European Union Anti-Deforestation Regulation Effectively 'Gutted' Despite High Hopes

It was a landmark piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted 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 stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber.

Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.

Political Dismantling

Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.

This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction.

At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward 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 IT issues, which sparked criticism.

"By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint.

In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines.

"It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Mounting Pressure

Yet, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries.

Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations.

"The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law includes key dilutions:

• Retailers and traders 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 four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny.

"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it reduced accountability."

Uncertainty for Companies

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

"It is very frustrating 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 could be altered again. It’s a major letdown."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, stating: "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 law."