Originally hailed as a groundbreaking piece of legislation that would curb the worldwide crisis of deforestation.
But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians.
"It has been gutted," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities 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 make enforcement and prosecution more difficult.
Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law.
This final text is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction.
When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to combat forest loss."
The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation.
"By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked the Green MEP.
Originally, the regulation required companies to trace goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and large financial penalties.
"It wasn't bureaucracy 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."
However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states.
Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations.
"The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks.
The passed law features several critical weakenings:
"Instead of tightening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability."
The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early.
"We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort 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."
A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation."
"The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important law."
