EU Delays Deforestation Regulation
Source: DairyNews.today
The European Union (EU) has announced a 12-month extension to the implementation of its EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), yielding to mounting pressure from the agri-food industry and international stakeholders. The regulation, initially set to take effect in late 2023, aims to curb greenhouse gas emissions and combat biodiversity loss by preventing deforestation linked to products like cocoa, coffee, and palm oil entering the EU market.
Following appeals from major agricultural and food bodies, as well as political figures from regions affected by the law, the European Commission (EC) decided to grant businesses additional time to adapt to the new requirements. Large companies will now have until December 2025, while small and micro-enterprises will be given until June 2026 to comply.
The decision comes after a strong lobbying effort by influential European organizations such as Copa-Cogeca and the European Livestock and Meat Trading Union (UECBV), which argued that the initial timeline was "unfeasible" and posed significant legal and market uncertainties. In a joint letter, these organizations, representing sectors like agriculture, timber, and packaging, urged for the delay, citing the challenges faced by businesses in adjusting their supply chains to the new standards.
Concerns were also raised by international trade partners, particularly in Southeast Asia and the United States. In June, U.S. officials from the Department of Agriculture, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department of Commerce formally requested the EC to delay the implementation, expressing worries about the potential impact on American producers who already engage in sustainable practices.
Acknowledging the widespread concerns, the EC announced that the additional 12-month phasing-in period would allow businesses to better prepare for the EUDR’s enforcement. The Commission also unveiled additional guidance and an international cooperation framework to support stakeholders in adapting to the law’s provisions, including clarifications on penalties and key definitions such as ‘forest degradation.’
However, the EC emphasized that the delay does not alter the fundamental objectives of the regulation. "The extension proposal in no way puts into question the objectives or the substance of the law, as agreed by the EU co-legislators," the Commission stated.
Criticism of the delay has emerged from several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including Global Witness and Fern, who argue that postponing the regulation undermines efforts to protect vulnerable ecosystems. "Businesses are pushing back because this law finally takes a stand against deforestation," said Giulia Bondi, senior EU forests campaigner at Global Witness, warning that any delay could hinder EU’s climate goals.
As the deforestation regulation moves forward, micro and small companies will benefit from a “lighter regime,” detailed on a newly launched webpage, allowing them additional flexibility in compliance. Despite the controversy, the EC remains firm that the EUDR is crucial in addressing deforestation and promoting sustainable supply chains globally.
The extended timeframe offers an opportunity for businesses, particularly in high-risk sectors, to align their practices with the EU’s environmental priorities while continuing to engage with global partners on the issue. However, the coming months will likely see ongoing debate as both industry and environmental groups push their respective agendas.
The decision comes after a strong lobbying effort by influential European organizations such as Copa-Cogeca and the European Livestock and Meat Trading Union (UECBV), which argued that the initial timeline was "unfeasible" and posed significant legal and market uncertainties. In a joint letter, these organizations, representing sectors like agriculture, timber, and packaging, urged for the delay, citing the challenges faced by businesses in adjusting their supply chains to the new standards.
Concerns were also raised by international trade partners, particularly in Southeast Asia and the United States. In June, U.S. officials from the Department of Agriculture, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, and the Department of Commerce formally requested the EC to delay the implementation, expressing worries about the potential impact on American producers who already engage in sustainable practices.
Acknowledging the widespread concerns, the EC announced that the additional 12-month phasing-in period would allow businesses to better prepare for the EUDR’s enforcement. The Commission also unveiled additional guidance and an international cooperation framework to support stakeholders in adapting to the law’s provisions, including clarifications on penalties and key definitions such as ‘forest degradation.’
However, the EC emphasized that the delay does not alter the fundamental objectives of the regulation. "The extension proposal in no way puts into question the objectives or the substance of the law, as agreed by the EU co-legislators," the Commission stated.
Criticism of the delay has emerged from several non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including Global Witness and Fern, who argue that postponing the regulation undermines efforts to protect vulnerable ecosystems. "Businesses are pushing back because this law finally takes a stand against deforestation," said Giulia Bondi, senior EU forests campaigner at Global Witness, warning that any delay could hinder EU’s climate goals.
As the deforestation regulation moves forward, micro and small companies will benefit from a “lighter regime,” detailed on a newly launched webpage, allowing them additional flexibility in compliance. Despite the controversy, the EC remains firm that the EUDR is crucial in addressing deforestation and promoting sustainable supply chains globally.
The extended timeframe offers an opportunity for businesses, particularly in high-risk sectors, to align their practices with the EU’s environmental priorities while continuing to engage with global partners on the issue. However, the coming months will likely see ongoing debate as both industry and environmental groups push their respective agendas.