The European Commission (the Commission) is currently contemplating another one-year delay to the Regulation on deforestation-free products (2023/1115/EU, the Regulation). In recent weeks, the Commission has expressed concerns that the IT system underpinning the Regulation is not equipped to deal with the data load that compliance with the Regulation will generate. However, rumours that the Commission is also considering amendments to the Regulation gained momentum this week following reports of remarks made by Jessika Roswall, the Environment Commissioner, to Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) during a private meeting.
The Regulation prohibits products made with or containing certain "commodities” (cattle, cocoa, coffee, oil palm, rubber, soya and wood) associated with deforestation and forest degradation from being placed on, or exported from, the EU market. Businesses will be required to perform due diligence on the origins of certain products prescribed by the Regulation and verify that they are deforestation-free. They must then submit this data, including the geocoordinates of the land used to cultivate the commodity, to a European competent authority. The Regulation provides for the ranking of originating countries as low, standard or high risk of deforestation. This risk rating determines the level of due diligence and regulatory scrutiny required. No country is exempt from the Regulation – even those designated as low risk have some due diligence obligations, albeit reduced ones.
Bowing to pressure?
Opposition to the Regulation is not new; division dogged its steps through the legislative process a few years ago and it was also a key driver of the first delay of the Regulation's commencement date, from 30 December 2024 to 30 December 2025. The Commission attempted to respond to these concerns and objections, broadly through non-legislative means that did not prove effective (see here for more). Now, with another delay being contemplated, the momentum has grown behind calls for substantial revision of the Regulation.
Proponents of the Regulation in its current form, which include MEPs from the Socialists and Democrats, Renew and Green political groups, as well as prominent non-governmental organisations such as ClientEarth and the World Wide Fund for Nature (the WWF), have denounced the proposed delay and written to members of the Commission calling for it to proceed with the Regulation as planned. These groups consider any delay or amendment of the Regulation to be a concession to trade lobbies in the battle of 'trade versus trees'.
Another group, made up of global food producers such as Nestlé, Mars Wrigley and Ferrero, told the Commission that they and others have been actively investing to ensure compliance with the Regulation, and that a new delay would introduce considerable uncertainty and result in additional compliance expenses for businesses. They have asked the Commission to instead consider imposing a short grace period until the EU's IT system is fully operational, where non-compliance due to IT issues could be overlooked and fines would be suspended.
Or listening to valid concerns?
However, opponents of the legislation argue that they are not opposed to measures to address deforestation; they are simply unconvinced that the Regulation will adequately, and proportionately, address these concerns.
Opponents include those from industries such as farming and forestry and third countries that are key suppliers of the aforementioned commodities, such as Brazil, Indonesia, Argentina and the US. While Commissioner Roswall has denied that the delay is linked to concerns that the Regulation is a barrier to trade, it has undoubtedly come up in EU trade negotiations with the US, Indonesia and Mercosur countries. For example, in its Joint Statement announcing the framework on a US-EU trade agreement, the EU committed "to work to address the concerns of US producers and exporters … with a view to avoiding undue impact on US-EU trade”. US lobbyists and negotiators have called for the country to be classified as a zero-risk country – something that isn't possible under the Regulation's current terms.
The majority of Member States now also seem in favour of amendments to the Regulation. Back in May 2025, a position paper entitled Simplification of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR): difficulties in implementing the EUDR and the need for substantial simplification was submitted by Luxembourg and Austria for discussion at a meeting of the Agriculture and Fisheries Council and supported by nine other Member States. The paper called for postponement of the Regulation until simplification is achieved, arguing that the requirements imposed on farmers and foresters may be impossible to implement.
Then, in July, agriculture ministers from 18 Member States, including Ireland, sent a joint letter to the Commission, calling for revision of the Regulation because it “does not sufficiently take into account countries with effective forest protection laws and a negligible risk of deforestation” and “imposes disproportionate bureaucratic obligations on countries, where deforestation is demonstrably insignificant”.
The European People’s Party (the EPP) has welcomed the delay and will be pushing, once again, for amendments such as:
The introduction of a zero-risk category whereby regions and products that pose no risk of deforestation will be exempt from the due diligence requirements of the Regulation.
The removal of the downstream effects of the Regulation so that the burden for proving that products are deforestation-free will lie exclusively with the first distributor on the EU market (something which is also supported by the International Swaps and Derivatives Association, the European Fund and Asset Management Association, and the Association for Financial Markets in Europe).
What happens next?
If it moves forward with postponement, the Commission must draft a formal proposal for an amending regulation, which would need the approval of both the Parliament and the Council of the EU. Given the narrow timeframe before the Regulation's current commencement date (30 December 2025), it is difficult to see how the Commission could propose other reforms, as these would be divisive and likely slow down the legislative process. For last year's pause, the Commission requested that the institutions follow the fast-track legislative procedure and other amendments proposed by the EPP were defeated in Parliament. We may see a repeat of this in the coming months, but possibly with a very different outcome.
