🔗 Share this article European Union Deforestation Regulation Effectively 'Dismantled' After Initial Fanfare It was a groundbreaking regulation that would combat the global scourge of deforestation. But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians. "The regulation was gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee. Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and less precise origin data would hinder monitoring and legal action. Political Dismantling Green party MEP 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 outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction. When launched in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the most ambitious legislation ever put forward to combat forest loss." From Ambition to Compromise The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism. "By revisiting the legislation rather than fixing a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP. Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, 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. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains." Intense Lobbying Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries. Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules. "Additional intense pressure has come from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks. The Weakened Final Text In the final legislation includes key dilutions: Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements. A new “low risk” category was introduced. A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring. Only a handful of nations – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring. "Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability." Uncertainty for Companies The protracted process and revisions have also caused frustration for companies that prepared in advance. "We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a major letdown." The Commission's Stance A commission spokesperson defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application." "The revised regulation ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this very important regulation."