🔗 Share this article EU Deforestation Law Largely 'Dismantled' After High Hopes It was a pioneering law that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss. However, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting alarm from its original architect and green lawmakers. "The regulation was stripped," stated Hugo Schally, citing the exclusion of key obligations for later-stage companies to verify the origin of products like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee. He warned that fewer obligated actors, 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 postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law. This outcome is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products. 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 regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which sparked criticism. "By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked the Green MEP. Originally, the law mandated that firms to trace 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," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind opaque production networks." Mounting Pressure Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states. Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules. "The other pressure came from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, suggesting the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations. Key Loopholes Introduced In the final legislation features several critical weakenings: Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements. A new “low risk” category was created. A option for more reductions was opened for next spring. Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring. "Rather than strengthening downstream obligations, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities upstream, it lessened the number of responsible firms." Uncertainty for Companies The delays and changes have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early. "It is very frustrating 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." Official Defense An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient application." "The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important law."