🔗 Share this article EU Deforestation Law Largely 'Watered Down' After Initial Fanfare Originally hailed as a groundbreaking law that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss. However, the final version of the EU's deforestation regulation, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians. "It has been gutted," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee. He warned that a reduced number of responsible companies, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities. Political Dismantling Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, describing the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law. This final text is a far cry from the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products. When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner trumpeted it as "the toughest law ever put forward to fight deforestation." From Ambition to Compromise The law's unravelling is seen by critics as the European Union retreating from its environmental promises. The proposal encountered two major postponements, ostensibly over IT issues, which sparked criticism. "By reopening this file instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," commented Toussaint. Originally, the regulation mandated that firms to track goods to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and large financial penalties. "It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks." Mounting Pressure Yet, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and EU logging states. Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules. "Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations. The Weakened Final Text The passed law includes key dilutions: Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks. A new exemption for small operators was created. A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring. Only a handful of nations – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face “high risk” scrutiny. "Instead of tightening downstream obligations, it rolled them back," lamented Schally. "Moving obligations to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms." Uncertainty for Companies The delays and changes have also caused frustration for businesses that complied early. "We feel very annoyed because we invested significant resources into complying," 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 An EU representative defended the outcome, stating: "We have listened to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation." "The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important regulation."