🔗 Share this article European Union Deforestation Law Largely 'Dismantled' After Initial Fanfare Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would help stop the global crisis of forest loss. However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the flagship policy of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers. "The regulation was stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to verify the origin of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee. Schally cautioned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities. Political Dismantling Environmental MEP a leading green politician went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law. This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million European citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a ban on deforestation-linked products. When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the most ambitious law proposed to fight forest loss." From Ambition to Compromise The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism. "By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP. In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to track commodities back to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties. "This was not red tape 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." Intense Lobbying However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states. Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules. "Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," noted corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations. Key Loopholes Introduced The passed law includes several critical weakenings: Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements. A new “low risk” category was introduced. A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring. Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face the strictest monitoring. "Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented the law's author. "Moving obligations to producers, it reduced accountability." 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 preparing," stated a coffee company executive. "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 An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation." "The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this very important regulation."