🔗 Share this article European Union Deforestation Law Largely 'Gutted' After High Hopes It was a landmark regulation that would curb the global scourge of deforestation. But, the final version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has been passed in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians. "It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the provenance of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee. Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action. A Watered-Down Law Green party MEP Marie Toussaint went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law. This outcome is a far cry from the demands of more than a million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on goods linked to forest destruction. At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest legislation proposed to combat forest loss." From Ambition to Compromise The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation. "By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint. Originally, the law required companies to trace goods back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines. "This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks." Intense Lobbying Yet, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states. Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of green regulations. "Additional intense pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks. The Weakened Final Text The passed law features key dilutions: Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks. A new “low risk” category was created. A option for more reductions was established for next spring. Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring. "Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms." Uncertainty for Companies The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early. "It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into preparing," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown." Official Defense A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation." "The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."