🔗 Share this article EU Anti-Deforestation Regulation Effectively 'Gutted' Despite High Hopes Originally hailed as a pioneering law that would help stop the global scourge of forest loss. However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, 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 stripped," stated the law's original author, pointing to the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to verify the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber. Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult. Political Dismantling Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law. This final text is a far cry from the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding 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 proposed to combat forest loss." A Story of Dilution The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism. "By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP. Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, making them liable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and hefty fines. "It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks." Intense Lobbying However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states. Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward green regulations. "Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations. Key Loopholes Introduced The passed law features key dilutions: Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements. A new “low risk” category was introduced. A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring. Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny. "Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it reduced accountability." Business Frustration The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance. "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 major letdown." The Commission's Stance A commission spokesperson supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application." "The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this vitally important law."