The European Parliament and the EU Council Presidency reached a compromise Thursday significantly watering down the EU’s deforestation regulation, sparking criticism from environmental groups and raising serious questions about the bloc’s commitment to climate targets. Initially intended to ensure goods like coffee, cocoa, palm oil and timber are free from deforestation, the implementation has been delayed by a year and the scope has been narrowed to exclude printed materials entirely.
A core shift in responsibility lies in the obligation to provide due diligence. The onus has been moved away from retailers and operators selling products and now falls primarily on companies introducing those goods into the EU market for the first time. This change, proponents argue, will ease the burden on smaller enterprises, who will now submit a simplified, one-time declaration. Critics, however, contend this significantly reduces accountability and creates loopholes for larger corporations to exploit.
The agreement is facing scrutiny given the scale of global deforestation. According to estimates from the UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), a staggering 420 million hectares of forest – an area exceeding the EU’s total landmass – were lost between 1990 and 1990. Worryingly, EU consumption is directly implicated in approximately 10% of this global deforestation, with palm oil and soy accounting for over two-thirds of that impact.
The parliamentary vote scheduled for December 15-18, pending approval from both the Parliament and the Council, will formally ratify the revised regulations. The weakened framework immediately casts doubt on the EU’s leadership role in global efforts to combat climate change and protect biodiversity. While proponents tout easing burdens for businesses, concerns persist that the compromise prioritizes economic expediency over environmental responsibility and undermines the regulation’s original intent: to sever the link between European consumption and deforestation abroad. The move is already being interpreted by some as a concession to powerful agricultural lobbies pushing for less stringent oversight.
