Almost exactly two years ago, the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) was delayed for the first time.
This was the beginning of a long chain of events that saw products removed from the regulation’s scope, simplifications introduced and a second delay put in place.
While the regulation has changed in meaningful ways since it was first introduced, it has also retained a lot of its original shape.
Despite significant pressure, a ‘negligible risk’ benchmarking category, which would have substantially reduced checks for the relevant countries, was not introduced. Furthermore, while certain products, such as leather and palm oil waste, were removed from its scope, the core seven commodities – cocoa, palm oil, soy, coffee, rubber, wood and cattle – remained in place.
Despite delays and simplifications, the regulation has retained its force. Further simplifications or delays would mean immense loss of credibility.
It is backed by (most of) industry
The EUDR has faced significant political opposition, particularly from the US.
There is a history of this: the Biden administration was already calling for a delay in June 2024. Now, the US ambassador to the EU, Andrew Pudzer, is calling it “textbook over-regulation” that will produce “inconsequential environmental benefit when enforced against countries that pose no deforestation risk”.
Yet much of industry itself is behind it. Large food companies such as Ferrero, Barry Callebaut and Nestlé are in support, with the latter signalling its readiness for the regulation.
The regulation does have its critics, but lawmakers are not battling against a unified, coherent opposition. With such significant support from many of the stakeholders who would be affected, there are fewer reasons for lawmakers to delay or simplify it.
If the EU were to do this, it would appear not to be responding to commonly held grievances, but to complaints of a small handful of companies or even to its own reluctance to implement the regulation as is.
Combatting deforestation will never be simple
Of course, all regulation must balance its goals with how practical it is to implement them, and a regulation so burdensome that it is impossible to implement is no good to anyone.
But combatting deforestation will never be simple. The commodities covered by the EUDR have supply chains with many links, numerous informal intermediaries and data that remains in many instances nearly impossible to collect.
If the EUDR is to retain its initial purpose – the prevention of deforestation-linked commodities entering the EU – then it cannot ignore these supply chains, it cannot avoid taking into account their many links and it cannot pretend that they are more simple than they are.
No truly stringent anti-deforestation law can make dealing with these facts easy. But in order to have any chance of tracking the EUDR’s commodities from their source and therefore substantially reducing deforestation, the EU needs to face this complexity head-on.
Now is the time
The EUDR has been scrutinised, analysed, deliberated on and argued over, eating up two years of time in which it could already have been in place.
The longer such scrutiny goes on, the more a regulation that was meant to be ready two years ago is delayed, the more it begins to look like a paper tiger.
Eventually, it begins to look to food companies like something that may never truly matter to them, like something they do not need to take seriously.
The regulation is now approaching its deadline of 30 December 2026. Despite its many flaws, if the EUDR is to have teeth, it must be implemented on time.
