🔗 Share this article EU Deforestation Regulation Largely 'Watered Down' Despite Initial Fanfare It was a groundbreaking regulation that would help stop the worldwide scourge of forest loss. But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has been passed in a severely weakened state, leading to criticism from its original architect and green lawmakers. "The regulation was stripped," said the law's original author, citing the removal of crucial requirements for downstream traders to check the provenance of commodities like palm oil, soy, wood, beef, rubber, cocoa and coffee. Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would complicate the task of authorities. Political Dismantling Green party vice-president Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – including one for paper goods – as the "systematic weakening" of the law. This final text is a far cry from the hopes of more than a million EU citizens who signed a petition in 2020 demanding a prohibition of deforestation-linked products. When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner the European commissioner called it "the toughest law proposed to combat forest loss." A Story of Dilution The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the European Union retreating from its green talk. It faced two major postponements, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism. "By reopening this file rather than fixing a simple IT problem, the commission opened Pandora’s box," commented Toussaint. In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace goods to their exact plot of land using geolocation data, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with criminal charges and hefty fines. "This was not red tape for its own sake," the former official said. "It was the mechanism that made the rules enforceable, created a verifiable paper trail, and stopped companies from hiding behind complex supply chains." Mounting Pressure However, the rigorous checks provoked opposition in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries. Analysts point to last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power less favorable toward environmental rules. "Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, suggesting the EU yielded to some demands in trade talks. The Weakened Final Text In the final legislation includes several critical weakenings: Downstream operators were largely freed from conducting rigorous checks. A new “low risk” category was introduced. A window for further "simplifications" was established for next spring. Only four countries – geopolitical adversaries of the EU – will face the strictest monitoring. "Instead of tightening rules for companies, it stripped them back," said Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms." Uncertainty for Companies The delays and changes have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance. "We feel very annoyed 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 may be changed. It’s a big frustration." The Commission's Stance An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a simple, fair and cost-efficient implementation." "The revised regulation provides for predictability, which is key for business and national regulators to effectively enforce this very important law."