🔗 Share this article European Union Anti-Deforestation Law Largely 'Watered Down' After High Hopes Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would combat the global scourge of forest loss. But, the revised version of the European Union's deforestation regulation, previously heralded as the flagship policy of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting alarm from its initial author and environmental politicians. "It has been stripped," stated Hugo Schally, pointing to the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber. He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action. A Watered-Down Law Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law. This final text stands in stark contrast to 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, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious law ever put forward to combat deforestation." A Story of Dilution The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism. "By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint. In its first draft, the law required companies to track goods back to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines. "It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains." Intense Lobbying However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash 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 green regulations. "The other pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," noted expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks. The Weakened Final Text In the final legislation features key dilutions: Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks. A new “low risk” category was introduced. 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," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability." Uncertainty for Companies The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance. "It is very frustrating because we put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration." Official Defense An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application." "The new text provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."