Final Vote on EUDR Delay: Implications
What happened and how is the EUDR changing?
It is official! On December 23, 2024, the final text amending the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) was published in the European Official Journal, marking the passing into law of all amendments discussed in the past weeks affecting the Regulation.
A three-months-long legislative process
Over the past year, the European Union has been pressured by global industries, producing countries and even some member states to stop the implementation of EUDR. The motivations were linked to the complexity of the requirements, the increased administrative burden over the producers of raw materials – usually smallholders – the disruption that such innovative and unprecedented legislation would have had on global supply chains, and the unpreparedness of both European institutions and stakeholders to manage it.
Considering these arguments, on October 2, 2024, the EU Commission initiated a three-month-long legislative process to delay the EUDR’s entry into force without modifying the text itself. The Council also made sure to keep the EUDR’s initial content and objectives. Nonetheless, it asked the Commission to ensure the benchmarking system would be in effect before the Regulation’s implementation.
Some political forces saw this as an opportunity to amend and simplify the official text, threatening its effectiveness and stirring some protests. The Parliament voted in favour of some controversial modifications, which the Council eventually rejected. The debate which followed was highly successful, as it managed to find common ground as well as protect the EUDR’s original ambitions.
On December 17, 2024, the Parliament voted in favour and the next day the Council accepted the proposal. Now that the final amendments are published in the EU Official Journal, they are binding for all stakeholders involved.
In the next paragraphs, we will see in detail the amendments approved and their implications for stakeholders.
The Commission’s final proposal
Article 38, paragraphs 2 and 3: EUDR Delay
EUDR is delayed by one year, meaning that its date of application is no longer December 30, 2024, but it will apply from December 30, 2025, for large and medium companies. Concerning the small and micro enterprises, the date of application is now being postponed to June 30, 2026.
The amendment relates to Articles 3 to 13, Articles 16 to 24 and Articles 26, 31 and 32. Overall, the Articles excluded relate to general provisions that describe the functioning of the Regulation and their implementation under EU and member states responsibility.
Topics include the setting up of competent authorities (Article 14), the issuance of guidelines from the Commission and the technical assistance and exchange of information from the Member States to operators (Article 15), the expected penalties (Article 25), the cooperation and coordination among competent and custom authorities (Article 27), the creation of the electronic interface to allow data communication between customs systems and the EU TRACES information system (Article 28), the benchmarking of country risk levels (Article 29), the cooperation and support to and among third countries (Article 30), as well as chapter 7 (“Information system”), chapter 8 (“Review”), chapter 9 (“Final provisions”).
Please note that Article 37 and Article 29 paragraph 2 have been modified by the following separate amendments.
Article 37: EU Timber Regulation (EUTR)
The overall delay affects not only the EUDR but also the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR). The amendment postpones the general date of application to December 31, 2027, and explains how to manage the interim period.
If the harvest date is before June 29, 2023, there are two scenarios to consider based on the date when the product is placed on the market:
On top of this, for cases when the harvest date is after June 29, 2023, let’s divide again the two scenarios:
Article 29, paragraph 2: The Benchmarking Risk Classification
deforestation and forest degradation, all countries will maintain the standard level of risk as assigned by default on June 29, 2023. The benchmarking system must be made available by the Commission no later than June 30, 2025.
The mentioned amendments were published in the EU Official Journal. However, the Commission also pledged its commitment to Amendment 16. Below is its description.
Amendment 16
The EPP party proposed several amendments, some of which were ultimately withdrawn due to their controversial nature and to the fear that they would not be backed by the Parliament.
The final proposal consisted on Amendment 16 which was voted in favour by the Parliament on December 17, and by the Council on December 18. The amendments require the Commission to commit to:
- Reduction of the administrative burden, meaning that it will provide all material and information necessary to ease the adoption of EUDR, including additional simplifications, updated Guidelines and Frequently Asked Questions, supporting documentation and constant communication with the involved stakeholders.
- Preparedness of the EU TRACES system, meaning that it will focus the necessary resources in ensuring that the IT system TRACES for the upload of the Due Diligence Statements and the management of communication with authorities is ready by June 30, 2025, at the latest.
- Completion of the benchmarking risk classification, meaning that it must ensure that the country-based categorisation of the deforestation and forest degradation risk – high, standard or low – will be available by June 30, 2025, to provide an unambiguous operating space.
- Simplification of the country requirements, meaning that during the review phase that is currently planned before June 30, 2028, it will evaluate possible measures to simplify the requirements based on specific risk levels, especially for countries that “achieved positive results”.
Withdrawn and rejected amendments
The same political party also proposed other amendments that were withdrawn or rejected and that in the end did not make it to the final round. These amendments are:
- Two-year delay: the proposal included pushing the EUDR enforcement deadline from December 2024 to December 2026 to allow businesses more time to adapt. It was withdrawn before the first Parliament voting session in November.
- Exemptions for Traders: the proposal aimed to remove EUDR requirements for traders, based on the idea that the initial operators would have fulfilled all necessary documentation. It was withdrawn before the first Parliament voting session in November.
- Involvement of WTO as facilitator: the proposal required a structured dialogue with WTO, although the Commission was still expected as per the original EUDR official text to undertake international discussions with other entities such as CBD, FAO, UN Convention to Combat Desertification, UN Environment Assembly, UN Forum on Forests, UNFCCC, WTO, G7 and G20. It was rejected during the first Parliament voting session in November.
- “No-Risk” Countries: the proposal added a new “no-risk” category to the country classification, exempting these countries from strict due diligence, thus lessening compliance obligations for companies sourcing from them. This proposal was approved during the first Parliament voting session in November but rejected by the Council some days later. The “no-risk” category was ratified into the request to introduce simplifications for countries that can demonstrate “effective and sustainable forestry practices.”, then finally changed into the last paragraph of Amendment 16 (“countries and parts thereof that have achieved positive result”).
EUDR expert insight
Following the delay and the satellite amendments, it is clear that the Our EUDR expert Tobias Stäuble shares his perspective on the EUDR delay and the possible implications.
“For those actors who have been working hard against the initial deadline, the official postponement takes away some time pressure to fill the remaining gaps. Gaps relevant to most actors include:
Several stakeholders representing importers and downstream operators and traders had raised concerns that the sector they represent is by far not ready. For these actors, facing larger gaps in EUDR readiness, the postponement is more crucial. Nevertheless, actors who are still at an early stage of getting EUDR ready should not sit back and reduce their activities upon the announcement of the postponement.
As there are no changes to the content of the Regulation, the postponement’s impact on EUDR effectiveness can be deemed moderate. There are no metrics and data for the effectiveness of an enforced EUDR yet so the impact of the postponement could at best be estimated based on studies on embodied deforestation in the EU market that served as a baseline for EUDR.”
The main message is that the postponement is granting an extraordinary opportunity to prepare for EUDR and companies should take advantage of it. The additional time can be used to integrate the EUDR requirements directly into the operational procedures, to test the supplier readiness and flexibility along the supply chains, to uncover the environmental risks in advance and to invest strategically and proactively into effective mitigation measures.
Being passive and waiting to act until the last minute will not pay off in the long run and could result in tensions and uncertainty for your organisation. The time is now to take matters into your own hands.
EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR)
The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), officially known as Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, is a legislative framework adopted by the European Union to fight deforestation and forest degradation caused by the production and consumption of certain commodities – namely soy, palm oil, cattle, wood, coffee, cocoa and rubber – and their derivatives.
It aims to ensure that products placed on the EU market, or exported from it, do not contribute to deforestation or forest degradation globally. In particular, its objectives are:
The EUDR sets a precedent for sustainable trade policies and encourages producing countries to adopt deforestation-free practices. It also holds businesses accountable for their environmental impact, fostering transparency and responsibility in global supply chains.
