What\u2019s the latest on the EU deforestation law? A quick summary<\/p>\n
OK, a landmark deforestation regulation is coming into play. Oh no wait, it\u2019s been delayed. Newsflash: delay extended. Wait, no it hasn\u2019t \u2013 well for some it has, but not for others.<\/p>\n
If that\u2019s your inner dialogue on the state of the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), this timeline is for you. Let\u2019s break down where we started, how we got here, and crucially for industry, where we\u2019re going.<\/p>\n
1. The first delay – from 2024 to 2025<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s call this segment \u2018the first delay\u2019. Then, however many come after that we can number them \u2018second delay\u2019, \u2018third delay\u2019 and so on. I\u2019m being facetious, but spoiler: there is at least one more delay to come.<\/p>\n
Europe\u2019s deforestation law, which aims to wipe out forest loss from European supply chains \u2013 for at-risk commodities coffee, cocoa, cattle, timber, soy and palm oil \u2013 was always meant to be enforced in December 2024 for big companies, and six months later for smaller ones.<\/p>\n
So it was huge news when a 12-month extension was granted for all<\/a> late last year. Businesses just weren\u2019t ready, and a postponement would give industry more time to prepare their due diligence requirements. <\/p>\n The new date set was to be December 2025 for big companies, and again, six months later for smaller ones. <\/p>\n 2. EUDR simplification – \u2018negligible risk\u2019<\/p>\n Discussions around reworking the EUDR came this year. Some call it \u2018watering down\u2019, others call it \u2018simplification\u2019. Whatever the term, it came from pressure to add a fourth risk category to the EUDR\u2019s benchmarking system.<\/p>\n Aside from high, standard or low risk, the fourth category \u2013 negligible risk<\/a> \u2013 would help countries posing zero deforestation risk with due diligence requirements. If awarded negligible risk status, they\u2019d have very little to do \u2013 making for frictionless trade.<\/p>\n Critics raised concerns that an ingredient or product associated with deforestation could more easily enter the EU via a \u2018negligible\u2019 risk country.<\/p>\n This new risk category has not been entered into law, but it seems popular among countries deemed to benefit, like EU member states and the US<\/a>.<\/p>\n 3. The second delay – from 2025 to 2026<\/p>\n And then comes the second delay, almost a year to the day from the Commission\u2019s first proposal to postpone in 2024. To be absolutely clear, the second delay remains a proposal<\/a>. It has not been approved by relevant lawmakers.<\/p>\n The proposed delay came from Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall, who did not cite industry unpreparedness, instead blaming the unpreparedness of the Commission itself \u2013 or rather, its IT system<\/a>.<\/p>\n Also read \u2192 Are IT problems really to blame for EUDR delay?<\/a><\/p>\n According to the Commission, new estimates suggest the IT system will face a much heavier workload than expected. If the system can\u2019t cope with the influx of inputs from downstream operators, as well as from the Commission and national authorities, it\u2019s feared the EUDR could end up plagued with disruptions.<\/p>\n For this reason, the Commission has been campaigning for another 12-month delay \u2013 meaning big players would need to comply by December 2026.<\/p>\n 4. The big backflip<\/p>\n Less than a month after the Commission proposed a second year-long delay, it backflipped. Mind the whiplash.<\/p>\n Its new proposal scraps the second delay for larger operators, which in food means companies like Nestl\u00e9, Unilever, Mondel\u0113z International, and Danone will find themselves needing to comply by December 2025, as planned.<\/p>\n