Spanner in the works? European Parliament agrees to EU Deforestation Regulation delay but proposes amendments

Last week, the European Parliament agreed to the European Commission’s suggested postponement of the application of the European Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by one year. Although this was expected, the Parliament also suggested a number of amendments to the EUDR (proposed by some members of the European People’s Party – the party of Commission President Ursula von der Leyen), opening up the substance of the law to negotiation once more. The Council of the EU had previously agreed to the delay without proposing any amendments. 

The Parliament’s proposals will now need to be negotiated and agreed to by the Council and the Commission before they can enter into force, which creates some uncertainty as to what will be agreed and by when – the Commission had previously invited the Parliament and Council to agree to the delay by the end of this year, but timings are increasingly tight. The Council “firmly reiterated” its support for the proposed EUDR delay on 20 November 2024, but does not appear to support the amendments proposed by the Parliament. Agreement must be reached by mid-December; if not, there’s a risk that the delay will not be enacted into law in time, meaning that the EUDR will apply from 30 December 2024 – an outcome that none of the institutions are likely to want, given that they have all agreed to the delay. 

The most significant amendment proposed by the Parliament is the introduction of an additional risk category for the assessment of countries’ deforestation risk. Currently, the EUDR has three categories: high risk, low risk, and standard risk. The Parliament proposes adding a ‘no risk’ category, for countries or parts of countries where forest area development has remained stable or has increased compared to 1990, which have signed up to the Paris Agreement and international conventions on human rights and on preventing deforestation, and which have regulations on preventing deforestation and supporting forest conservation that are strictly implemented and enforced. Operators or traders placing products on the EU market produced in countries classified as ‘no risk’ would be subject to much less stringent due diligence and documentation requirements. According to the Parliament, this reflects the fact that “there is a negligible or non-existent risk of deforestation”. 

In addition, the Parliament suggests that the Commission “should prioritise” optimising its platform for the exchange of information between relevant stakeholders and the competent authorities, and that it should publish the risk classification to assist in-scope entities with preparing to comply. Both the platform and risk classification should be available and fully functioning at least six months before the EUDR’s application. If this is not achieved, the EUDR’s application should be postponed accordingly, which introduces the possibility of further EUDR delays beyond the one year delay. 

The Parliament’s proposals have been criticised both by NGOs and non-EU countries, with the former expressing concerns that the changes risk undermining the effectiveness of the EUDR, and the latter fearing that the ‘no risk’ category would discriminate against exporter countries. The developments may be indicative of changing tides in the EU, following the June election which brought in a new Parliament with a larger right-wing bloc. 

Finally, we note that the Commission published its finalised guidance on the EUDR last week (just before the amendments were proposed). It does not address the amendments, nor the delay, however.