🔗 Share this article EU Deforestation Law Effectively 'Gutted' Despite Initial Fanfare Originally hailed as a groundbreaking regulation that would curb the global scourge of deforestation. However, the final version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a severely weakened state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers. "It has been stripped," stated the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for later-stage companies to check the origin of commodities like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber. He warned that fewer obligated actors, less information collected, and less precise origin data would make enforcement and prosecution more difficult. A Watered-Down Law Environmental vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law. This outcome is a far cry from the demands of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on goods linked to forest destruction. When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest law ever put forward to fight deforestation." A Story of Dilution The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism. "By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a technical issue, the commission opened Pandora’s box," remarked Toussaint. In its first draft, the law mandated that firms to track commodities to their specific geographic origin using geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with criminal charges and hefty fines. "It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally explained. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains." Mounting Pressure Yet, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and EU logging states. Analysts point to last year's European Parliament elections as a turning point, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules. "Additional intense pressure came from big trading partners outside the EU," noted corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks. Key Loopholes Introduced In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings: Downstream operators were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements. A new exemption for small operators was introduced. A option for more reductions 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. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms." 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," stated a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration." Official Defense A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to feedback and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation." "The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to effectively enforce this vitally important regulation."