🔗 Share this article European Union Deforestation Law Largely 'Dismantled' Despite Initial Fanfare Widely celebrated as a groundbreaking law that would combat the worldwide scourge of forest loss. But, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, once touted as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians. "The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance 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. Political Dismantling Environmental vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law. This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction. At its launch in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans trumpeted it as "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss." From Ambition to Compromise The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation. "By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP. In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines. "It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks." Intense Lobbying However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and EU logging states. Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules. "The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks. The Weakened Final Text In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings: Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements. A new “low risk” category was created. A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring. Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring. "Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms." Business Frustration 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," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration." Official Defense An EU representative supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation." "The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."