🔗 Share this article EU Deforestation Regulation Largely 'Gutted' After High Hopes Widely celebrated as a landmark regulation that would curb the worldwide scourge of deforestation. But, the revised version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, previously heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and green lawmakers. "It has been stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of key obligations for downstream traders to check the provenance of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber. He warned that fewer obligated actors, fewer data points, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action. A Watered-Down Law Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint went further, labeling the delays, loopholes and exemptions – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law. This outcome stands in stark contrast to the demands of more than a million European citizens who signed a petition 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 legislation ever put forward to combat deforestation." From Ambition to Compromise The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered significant delays, ostensibly over technical problems, which drew condemnation. "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 geolocation data, holding them accountable for forest loss along their supply lines with penalties and large financial penalties. "This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "These rules were the tool that made the rules enforceable, established traceability, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains." Mounting Pressure However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in the EU capital from multinational corporations, producer countries, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries. Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority less favorable toward environmental rules. "The other pressure has come from major export markets like the United States," said expert Andreas Rasche, implying the commission gave in to some demands in trade talks. The Weakened Final Text In the final legislation features key dilutions: Retailers and traders were largely freed from submitting due diligence statements. A new “low risk” category was introduced. A window for further "simplifications" was opened for next spring. Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring. "Rather than strengthening rules for companies, it rolled them back," lamented the law's author. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it reduced accountability." Uncertainty for Companies The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for businesses that complied early. "It is very frustrating because we invested significant resources into preparing," said a coffee company executive. "We invested in software, followed seminars and built a team... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration." The Commission's Stance An EU representative defended the outcome, saying: "We have listened to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation." "The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and national regulators to successfully implement this vitally important law."