While calls to delay the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) were sparked from industry concerns to comply, not everyone has welcomed the move.
On 14 November, European Parliament voted to amend and postpone the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) from the original date of 30 December 2024 by exactly one year for large companies and to 30 June 2026 for smaller businesses.
The regulation which is part of the EU’s Green Deal prohibits the import or trade within Europe of several commodities, including palm oil, cocoa, soy and coffee, which have contributed to deforestation from 2020.
The UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) estimates that 420m hectares of forest — an area larger than the EU — were lost to deforestation between 1990 and 2020.
The EU consumption represents around 10% of global deforestation, with palm oil and soya accounting for more than two-thirds of this.
“Another year of unmitigated conversion of forest area into agricultural land could make future due diligence harder, as newly converted producer land will be non-compliant with the 2020 cut-off date, leading to more non-compliant commodities on the global markets,” commented Senior responsible sourcing manager for the Soil Association Certification, Maggie FitzHerbert.
“It is doubly disappointing given there were other viable, and preferable options available besides delaying the regulation, for example a grace period of soft enforcement, which would have allowed both European institutions and commodity companies to catch up with the requirements.”
‘A dangerous loophole’
Along with delaying the regulation, Parliament has also proposed amendments to the rules initially proposed by political groups. This includes the introduction of a new ‘no risk’ category in addition to the three existing categories - low, standard and high.
Countries classified as no risk are defined as ‘countries with stable or increasing forest area development’.
However, the Soil Association Certification, alongside a number of non-profits, including the WWF, Earthsite, the World Resources Institute, and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN), have dubbed this move as a real threat to climate progress.
FitzHerbert described it as ‘a tragedy’, explaining that there is no such thing as zero risk.
“There is a real danger that ‘zero risk’ countries are used as backdoors for non-compliant product to come into the EU unchecked, and a two-tier system where some product is traceable and some isn’t,” she said.
“This increases the risk for everyone, rather than streamlines processes. The ‘zero risk’ category has no credibility in science nor due diligence frameworks.”
She argued that the concept is not aligned with the principals of due diligence which the EUDR is based upon.
“The legislation is complex and challenging, but so is commodity-linked deforestation and degradation. Weakening the rules and delaying its start date, just weeks before it is due to enter into application, may in fact make compliance harder in the long run,” continued FitzHerbert.
Stientje van Veldhoven, vice-president and regional director for Europe of World Resources Institute agreed, calling it a ‘disappointing’ decision that 'undermines' the regulation’s objective to curb global deforestation.
“The proposed amendments present three major risks. First, the creation of a ‘no-risk’ country category generates loopholes that undermine the regulation by exempting companies from key due diligence requirements. A second risk is using 1990 as the reference year, which may miss more recent deforestation risks and degradation trends. And third, the amendments’ unclear language creates uncertainty for companies, investors and smallholder farmers."
“These poorly drafted amendments will exempt products from ‘no-risk’ countries from many of the law’s requirements. The criteria for determining which countries are ‘no-risk’ are arbitrary and seem designed to pander to Europe’s agriculture and forestry lobbies. More than this, the amendments create a dangerous loophole that could open the floodgates for products produced in high-risk countries to be laundered through no-risk countries,” added Earthsight’s policy lead Fyfe Strachan.
What happens now?
All EU institutions have now agreed to the postponement, but Member States have rejected attempts to deregulate.
“Member States sent a strong message to the European Parliament: attempts to weaken the EUDR are unacceptable. Delaying its application by even one year already risks exacerbating global deforestation,” commented Anke Schulmeister-Oldenhove, forest manager at the WWF European Policy Office.
“Any additional postponement and weakening would lead to further destruction, with devastating consequences for forests, our climate and biodiversity."
Negotiations between the two co-legislators have ensued, but the pressure for these to wrap up quickly is high. Changes need to be adopted, signed and published in the Official Journal of the EU before 30 December 2024.
The delay cannot be legally enacted until the amendments to the no-risk category are discussed and agreed. The Commission will also have to finalise a country benchmarking system for the categories by 30 June 2025.
