🔗 Share this article European Union Deforestation Regulation Effectively 'Dismantled' After High Hopes It was a pioneering law that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss. But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians. "It has been stripped," said the law's original author, pointing to the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee. Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities. A Watered-Down Law Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law. This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products. When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to fight deforestation." A Story of Dilution The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism. "By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint. In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties. "This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks." Intense Lobbying However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states. Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules. "Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks. Key Loopholes Introduced In the final legislation includes key dilutions: Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks. A new exemption for small operators was created. A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring. Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny. "Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms." Business Frustration The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early. "It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration." The Commission's Stance An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation." "The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important law."