🔗 Share this article EU Anti-Deforestation Law Largely 'Dismantled' After High Hopes Originally hailed as a pioneering regulation that would combat the global crisis of forest loss. But, the final version of the EU's anti-deforestation law, once heralded as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its initial author and environmental politicians. "The regulation was hollowed out," said Hugo Schally, pointing to the exclusion of crucial requirements for later-stage companies to verify 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 hinder monitoring and legal action. A Watered-Down Law Green party MEP Marie Toussaint was more blunt, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for printed products – as the "political dismantling" of the law. This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 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 most ambitious law proposed to fight deforestation." From Ambition to Compromise The regulation's dilution has been interpreted as the EU walking back its environmental promises. It faced significant delays, reportedly over IT issues, which sparked criticism. "By revisiting the legislation instead of solving a simple IT problem, authorities invited political interference," commented the Green MEP. Originally, the law mandated that firms to track commodities back to their exact plot of land using GPS coordinates, holding them accountable for deforestation in their supply chains with penalties and hefty fines. "It wasn't bureaucracy for its own sake," Schally said. "It was the mechanism that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind opaque production networks." Intense Lobbying However, the rigorous checks triggered a backlash in Brussels from multinational corporations, exporting nations, conservative political groups and member states with forestry industries. Experts cite last year's European Parliament elections as a decisive moment, shifting the balance of power more skeptical of environmental rules. "Additional intense pressure came from major export markets outside the EU," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the EU yielded to some requests during negotiations. The Weakened Final Text The passed law includes several critical weakenings: Downstream operators were mostly exempted from submitting due diligence statements. A new “low risk” category 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 rules for companies, it stripped them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities 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 put a lot of effort into complying," stated Xavier Rombouts. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it may be changed. It’s a big frustration." The Commission's Stance A commission spokesperson supported the final law, saying: "The commission has responded to concerns and acted to ensure a pragmatic and balanced application." "The new text provides for predictability, which is crucial for companies and competent authorities to successfully implement this very important regulation."