News

EU proposes delaying anti-deforestation rules by another year

The European Union (EU) plans to push back the already-delayed European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by another year, citing IT problems.

In September, environment commissioner Jessika Roswall announced her intention to ask for a delay to the introduction of the EUDR, which prohibits the import of products that contribute to deforestation.

The law was initially scheduled to come into force on 30 December 2024 for large enterprises and 30 June 2025 for small- and medium-sized companies.

However, with national bodies and companies calling on the EU Commission to provide more time to prepare, the European Commission announced an initial delay in October 2024, adopting a December 2025 implementation date.

Now, the food and beverage industry is gearing up for further postponement as the European Commission considers another pause.

EUDR: IT issues blamed for proposed delay

In a letter to Antonio Decaro, who chairs the EU Parliament’s Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety, Roswall recommended that the law’s introduction be postponed until 2026.

She cited unresolved IT challenges and stated that an extensive system was required to handle the vast amount of data necessary to ensure EUDR compliance.

The Commission said it recognised there are “serious capacity concerns regarding the IT system”. A robust system is needed to implement the EUDR rules, and the Commission stated it needs more time to ensure operations are effective and fully support the bill’s requirements.

“We have concluded that we cannot meet the original deadline without causing disruptions to our businesses and supply chain,” commission spokesman Olof Gill told a press conference.

Since last year’s initial delay, ongoing efforts have focused on simplifying EUDR-related technology. Yet, they still fall short of what the European environment commissioner believes is necessary to prevent business disruption.

“We need the time to combat the risk with the load of information in the IT system,” Roswall said.

She confirmed the proposal was not based on complaints from trade partners such as the US, Japan, or Malaysia, nor on recent discussions with Indonesia. In clarifying this position, Roswall said that modifying the deforestation bill’s contents remained an option and that simplification efforts for the law would remain ongoing.

The proposed delay needs to gain approval from member states and the European Parliament.

Potential postponement poses problems

Global food and beverage businesses have invested time and money to ensure their own systems can assimilate the new traceability data requirements for EUDR.

“The recent announcements from the European Commission do not provide the certainty that businesses need, and changing the goalposts at this stage makes navigating complex regulations and global supply chain compliance even harder,” Rebecca Kaya, senior regulatory advisor at Ashbury Global, told Ingredients Network.

The potential pushback date means food and beverage businesses that have committed resources to compliance will now be contemplating their reallocation, from both a staffing and financial perspective.

“Any delay or pushback will certainly not be helpful in any way, chiefly because complaint businesses will have already set things in motion,” said Kaya.

As businesses transition towards EUDR compliance, ensuring all supply chain participants are considered and prepared is vital.

“As an industry, we should continue to invest in stronger partnerships, digital infrastructure and practical pathways to compliance,” Julia Ocampo, VP of cocoa sourcing and sustainability at Luker Chocolate, told Ingredients Network.

Widening the gap between ‘ready’ and ‘not yet’

The proposed delay risks widening the gap between businesses that are ready and those which may deprioritise EUDR compliance. Unprepared companies may struggle to effectively integrate data systems and understand how to manage them.

“They may experience severe difficulties in securing suppliers who have themselves already taken sufficient steps to be compliant,” Kaya said.

Subsequently, this may result in a two-tier supply chain, where EUDR-compliant products cost significantly more than their non-compliant counterparts.

“This introduces both an element of risk of food fraud and the temptation for food businesses to cut corners, compromising food safety,” she added.

Looking towards a deforestation-free future

Despite the uncertainty, emphasis should be on building relationships with producers and suppliers, improving communication, and collaboration to work towards the eventual full implementation of EUDR, according to Kaya.

“‘Change is the only constant’, so food businesses need to focus on moving forward, ensuring they are building regulatory compliance into all their operations,” she said.

The sentiment is that these delays do not dilute the seriousness and importance attached to the EUDR.

“It brings several important and far-reaching aspects of ethical, financial, and environmental regulatory requirements into the realm of supply chain management,” Kaya added.

Ocampo said: “The delay to EUDR shouldn’t be seen as a pause button, but as an opportunity to focus on what really matters: helping smallholder farmers get ready.”