EU Deforestation Regulation at risk: will the new European institutions maintain their environmental ambition?

On November 14, the European Parliament voted for a 12-month delay in the implementation of the European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). This delay, proposed by the European Commission and previously agreed upon by the European Council, gives large enterprises until December 30, 2025, to comply with the law, while small and medium enterprises have until June 30, 2026. However, in addition to the delay, the European Parliament also voted to introduce a new category of “no risk” countries or regions, following last-minute amendments. This significant change to the EUDR requires a new interinstitutional “trilogue” between the European Parliament, Council, and Commission. Reopening the EUDR is a concerning development, threatening this critical piece of legislation and its effectiveness.

Header photo: Deforestation in the Amazon. © Britta Jaschinski IUCN NL

‘The one-year delay of the deforestation regulation is now inevitable. However, the changes proposed by the European Parliament can still be avoided as they have now been blocked by a majority of member states. This is good news, as they would seriously weaken the law. But much can still happen in the negotiations that now follow between the Council and the Parliament. IUCN NL calls the EU to not weaken nor reopen the law,’ says Coenraad Krijger, director of IUCN NL.

What does “no risk” mean?

According to the vote, “no risk” would apply to countries or regions with a stable or increased forest area since 1990 that have ratified the Paris Agreement and international conventions on human rights and deforestation prevention.

Furthermore, such “no risk” areas should have “enforced regulations on preventing deforestation and forest conservation at the national level (which) are strictly implemented, fully transparent, and monitored.” Traders and operators placing products on the European market from these countries or areas would still need to declare that forests are not degraded, and that relevant legislation is respected. However, unlike other countries, they would not be required to submit all geolocation data for production or declare no-deforestation.

Risks of the “no risk” category

While it is urgent to remove deforestation from European trade in commodities covered by the EUDR – such as soy, beef, palm oil, coffee, cocoa, timber, and natural rubber – the “no risk” designation creates a significant loophole. Without traceability requirements for these areas, the regulation’s effectiveness could be severely undermined. 

Heleen van den Hombergh, Senior Advisor on Agrocommodities at IUCN NL, warns: ‘In terms of sustainable agriculture and nature protection, ‘no risk’ areas do not exist.’ Moreover, distinguishing between “no risk” and “high risk” areas could exacerbate inequalities and tensions between trading countries.

Delays could provide preparation time – But at what cost?

The one-year delay, while regrettable, may allow stakeholders to better prepare for the EUDR’s implementation. This extra time could be used to develop and test robust traceability and verification systems, essential for ensuring compliance with the regulation. Such systems must not only monitor deforestation-free and legal production but also support broader land governance in producing countries.

Additionally, as the EUDR does not address all aspects of sustainable agriculture, these systems could be expanded to include information on ecosystem protection beyond forests and sustainable agricultural practices, such as responsible chemical management.  As van den Hombergh suggests: ‘This way, EUDR would best serve its function to promote a more sustainable agrocommodity trade.’ However, introducing the “no risk” classification risks sending a signal that the EU is scaling back its environmental ambitions, just as the world faces an escalating environmental crisis.

Upholding the EU’s environmental leadership

Boris Erg, Director of the IUCN European Regional Office, emphasised the urgency of maintaining the EU’s leadership on environmental issues: ‘The existential environmental crisis we are living is increasing every day, and the EU leadership shown by the Green Deal and its objectives are more than necessary today.’

The EUDR is a cornerstone of the EU’s environmental policy, and any weakening of its provisions would jeopardise its effectiveness in curbing deforestation. The current developments pose a critical question: will the new European institutions uphold the environmental ambition they committed to?

The coming negotiations will determine whether the EUDR can fulfil its potential as a transformative tool for sustainable trade – or if it will be another missed opportunity to curb the tide of deforestation.