🔗 Share this article EU Deforestation Regulation Largely 'Gutted' Despite High Hopes It was a landmark piece of legislation that would help stop the global scourge of forest loss. But, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the European Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, leading to alarm from its original architect and environmental politicians. "The regulation was gutted," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber. He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities. Political Dismantling Environmental vice-president a leading green politician was more blunt, describing the delays, loopholes and exemptions – including one for printed products – as the "systematic weakening" of the law. This final text is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 calling for a prohibition of goods linked to forest destruction. At its launch in 2021, the EU's climate chief Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law ever put forward to fight forest loss." A Story of Dilution The law's unravelling has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which drew condemnation. "By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint. Originally, the law mandated that firms to track goods back to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, making them liable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and large financial penalties. "This was not red tape for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks." Intense Lobbying However, the strict due diligence provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, producer countries, conservative political groups and EU logging states. Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules. "The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations. Key Loopholes Introduced The passed law features key dilutions: Downstream operators were mostly exempted from conducting rigorous checks. A new exemption for small operators was introduced. A option for more reductions was opened for next spring. Only four countries – Russia, Belarus, North Korea and Myanmar – will face “high risk” scrutiny. "Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," said the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, 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 invested significant resources into preparing," said Xavier Rombouts. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a major letdown." The Commission's Stance A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application." "The new text ensures stability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to effectively enforce this vitally important law."