🔗 Share this article

Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the worldwide crisis of forest loss.

But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its initial author and green lawmakers.

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

He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and less precise origin data would complicate the task of authorities.

A Watered-Down Law

Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law.

This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products.

When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight deforestation."

A Story of Dilution

The regulation's dilution 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 revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP.

Originally, the regulation required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land 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," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains."

Intense Lobbying

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

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

"Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.

The Weakened Final Text

The passed law features key dilutions:

• Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements.
• A new “low risk” category was introduced.
• A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring.
• Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring.

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

Uncertainty for Companies

The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance.

"It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated 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."

Official Defense

A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application."

"The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."