🔗 Share this article European Union Anti-Deforestation Regulation Largely 'Watered Down' After Initial Fanfare Originally hailed as a landmark regulation that would curb the global scourge of forest loss. However, the revised version of the European Union's anti-deforestation law, previously touted as the crown jewel of the Green Deal, has emerged in a significantly diluted state, prompting criticism from its original architect and environmental politicians. "The regulation was gutted," stated the law's original author, citing the exclusion of key obligations for downstream traders to check the origin of products like coffee, cocoa, beef, soy, palm oil, rubber and timber. Schally cautioned that a reduced number of responsible companies, less information collected, and imprecise sourcing details would hinder monitoring and legal action. Political Dismantling Green party vice-president a leading green politician went further, labeling the postponements, exceptions and new loopholes – such as one for paper goods – as the "political dismantling" of the law. This outcome stands in stark contrast to the hopes of over 1.2 million EU citizens who supported an initiative in 2020 demanding a ban on deforestation-linked products. When launched in 2021, then-Green Deal commissioner Frans Timmermans called it "the toughest legislation proposed to fight deforestation." From Ambition to Compromise The regulation's dilution is seen by critics as the EU walking back its green talk. The proposal encountered two major postponements, reportedly over technical problems, which drew condemnation. "By reopening this file rather than fixing a technical issue, authorities invited political interference," remarked Toussaint. In its first draft, the regulation mandated that firms to trace commodities to their specific geographic origin using GPS coordinates, 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. "These rules were the tool that ensured enforcement, created a verifiable paper trail, and prevented firms from obscuring their activities behind complex supply chains." Intense Lobbying However, the strict due diligence triggered a backlash in Brussels from large companies, exporting nations, rightwing parties and member states with forestry industries. Experts cite last year's EU elections as a decisive moment, creating a new political majority more skeptical of environmental rules. "Additional intense pressure has come from big trading partners like the United States," said corporate sustainability professor, implying the commission gave in to some requests during negotiations. The Weakened Final Text In the final legislation features several critical weakenings: Retailers and traders 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 rolled them back," lamented Schally. "By shifting responsibilities to producers, it lessened the number of responsible firms." Business Frustration The protracted process and revisions have also created annoyance for companies that prepared in advance. "We feel very annoyed because we put a lot of effort into complying," said a coffee company executive. "We purchased systems, trained staff and established procedures... now they’re saying it could be altered again. It’s a big frustration." Official Defense An EU representative supported the final law, stating: "The commission has responded to concerns and taken action to ensure a pragmatic and balanced implementation." "The new text ensures stability, which is key for business and national regulators to successfully implement this very important law."