🔗 Share this article European Union Deforestation Law Largely 'Dismantled' After High Hopes Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the global scourge of forest loss. However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians. "The regulation was hollowed out," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee. He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities. A Watered-Down Law Environmental MEP a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law. This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction. At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat forest loss." A Story of Dilution The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation. "By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint. Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines. "It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks." Mounting Pressure Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states. Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules. "Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations. Key Loopholes Introduced In the final legislation features several critical weakenings: Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements. A new “low risk” category was introduced. A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring. Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring. "Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms." Business Frustration The delays and changes have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance. "We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," stated 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 An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation." "The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."