🔗 Share this article European Union Deforestation Regulation Effectively 'Watered Down' Despite High Hopes It was a landmark piece of legislation that would combat the worldwide crisis of deforestation. But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers. "The regulation was gutted," said Hugo Schally, citing the removal of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities 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. Political Dismantling Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law. This final text stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of deforestation-linked products. When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious legislation proposed to fight deforestation." From Ambition to Compromise The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism. "By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint. In its first draft, the regulation required companies to track commodities to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties. "It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks." Mounting Pressure However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states. Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules. "The other pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations. The Weakened Final Text The passed law features several critical weakenings: Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements. A new exemption for small operators was introduced. A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring. Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny. "Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations 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. "We feel very annoyed 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 major letdown." Official Defense An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to feedback and acted to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application." "The revised regulation ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."