EU Parliament delays review of deforestation law

Members of the European Parliament voted 402 to 250 on Wednesday to postpone and streamline the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). This new legislation is designed to prevent products imported to or exported from EU markets from contributing to global deforestation and forest degradation. The law’s impact will be reviewed early next year for potential further simplification, even before it comes into effect.

The adopted position on the EUDR will serve as the basis for Parliament’s negotiating mandate in forthcoming discussions with the EU Council. This position closely aligns with the Council’s own stance, increasing the likelihood of the delay and simplification measures being approved.

Originally scheduled to take effect at the end of 2024, the EUDR was postponed by a year at the Commission’s request to give companies more time to meet compliance requirements. The new delay would push the law’s implementation to the end of 2026 for large companies and mid-2027 for smaller operators.

Introduced by the EU Commission in November 2021, the EUDR aims to ban deforestation-linked products from the EU market and set stringent compliance standards for companies dealing with commodities such as palm oil, beef, timber, coffee, cocoa, rubber, and soy, along with derived products like leather, chocolate, tyres, or furniture.

Under the EUDR, companies wishing to place relevant products on the EU market or export them will face mandatory due diligence obligations. These include tracing products back to the plot of land where they were produced to ensure they were not cultivated on deforested land post-2020 and comply with all applicable laws in the production country.

In September 2025, the Commission considered proposing a further one-year delay due to concerns that existing IT systems might not handle the data load from the new regulation. In October, however, the Commission’s formal proposal maintained plans for the EUDR to come into force at the end of the year, with a six-month enforcement grace period and a deadline for small enterprises to comply by the end of 2026.

The Commission’s new proposal also introduced simplification measures for the EUDR, shifting the focus of reporting obligations to operators placing EUDR products on the market. Downstream operators like retailers or manufacturers would only need one submission in the EUDR IT system rather than multiple ones. For micro and small primary operators, the obligation was reduced to a simple, one-off declaration, provided the information is available, eliminating the need for regular due diligence submissions.

Despite these changes, the EU Parliament and Council have adopted positions to delay the new anti-deforestation law for another year. Both groups also urge the Commission to conduct a new simplification review of the EUDR by April 2026 to assess the regulation’s administrative burden and impact, potentially leading to further amendments.

Left-leaning political groups in Parliament criticised the vote outcome, attributing it to an alliance between the centrist EPP party and far-right parties. This alliance previously resulted in a significant reduction of the EU’s sustainability reporting and due diligence laws.

In a statement following the vote, Delara Burkhardt, lead negotiator on the EUDR for the S&D Group, expressed concern over “The EPP’s alignment with the far right” on EUDR changes, noting the EPP rejected a compromise offer from her party.

Burkhardt remarked, “The EPP claims they want to cut red tape. In reality, their proposals do the opposite: a review of the regulation before it even applies to just a single company creates a limbo and maximum planning uncertainty. We want a European Union where businesses can rely on stability and predictability. Many large companies are already willing to do more for forest protection. They are now being held back.”

Several major companies in the sectors targeted by the EUDR have also cautioned against further delays and changes, arguing these would introduce new uncertainties and unfairly penalise businesses that have already invested in compliance systems.