In Latest Setback to Green Deal, EU Proposes 12-Month Delay to Anti-Deforestation Law

The EU is considering a year-long delay to its landmark anti-deforestation law after facing calls from governments and companies alike.

In the latest episode in the EU’s long-running tussle over environmental policies, the bloc is now proposing a 12-month delay to its statement ban on products linked to deforestation.

It’s been a long time coming – 20 of the 27 member states had asked the EU to soften or even suspend the law, who argued that the legislation would unfairly hurt small farmers and businesses. And they were joined by governments and corporations from across the globe, whose intense lobbying efforts since the law was announced in June 2023 appear to have been successful.

The delay will still need to be approved by the European Parliament and member states, but if that happens, the deforestation regulation would then come into effect on December 30, 2025 for large companies, and June 30, 2026 for small businesses.

The move has been hailed by leaders across the world, but slammed by climate campaigners, who have accused Ursula von der Leyen – about to begin her second term as the EU Commission president – of undermining the European green deal, one of her key achievements.

A key voice among the critics was Lithuanian MEP Virginijus Sinkevičius, who was the environment commissioner until mid-July and drafted the original deforestation regulation. He said the delay would represent “a step backward in the fight against climate change”, putting 80,000 acres of forest at risk every day, and increasing 15% of global carbon emissions.

EU accused of jumping the gun with deforestation law

Under the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), companies would be banned from importing commodities like cocoa, coffee, soy, palm and oil – and selling products such as chocolate, furniture or tyres – from land that has been degraded or recently deforested.

The decision was welcomed as one of the ambitious moves to cut back deforestation on a global scale. Through its imports, the EU is the second-largest contributor to deforestation, which is responsible for 6.5% of global carbon emissions (over twice as high as the aviation sector).

But governments across the world – from Brazil and Ivory Coast to Australia, Malaysia, and Indonesia – have pushed the EU to postpone the start of the EUDR. They argued that the wrong data was being used to measure forests, labelled the law as protectionist, and said it would harm millions of smallholder farmers who export to the EU.

The bloc’s own member states said it would disrupt the EU’s supply chain and push up prices at a time when the cost of living continues to be a major pain point for consumers.

To ensure compliance, companies would need to use satellite monitoring to map their supply chains down to the farm where the raw materials were grown, even if they’re in remote or rural regions. This has been criticised as highly complex, especially for large supply chains that also involve intermediaries.

Starbucks, which just bought two research farms to combat climate change, is among the companies facing the heaviest impact of the EUDR, given it buys 3% of the world’s coffee. “It’s the right thing to do, we’re totally on board,” Elliot Bentzen, the company’s director of trade and traffic, told Green Queen earlier this year.

But he added that there’s a ton of grey area in the EUDR, which doesn’t properly lay out the changes needed. The EU is asking for GPS coordinates for every farm, but the timeline for companies to comply is too quick and has left them scrambling, according to Bentzen. “We’re freaking out a bit. Everyone is freaking out,” he said, noting that the EU “bit off more than it can chew”.

This is why the EU Commission intends for the extra 12 months to be a phasing-in period to ensure “proper and effective implementation”, calling it “a balanced solution to support operators around the world in securing a smooth implementation from the start”.

“Several global partners have repeatedly expressed concerns about their state of preparedness, most recently during the United Nations General Assembly week in New York,” it said. “The guidance presented today will provide additional clarity to companies and enforcing authorities to facilitate the application of the rules, coming on top of the Commission’s continuous support for stakeholders since the law’s adoption.”

Delay could have been avoided with proper support

“Ursula von der Leyen might as well have wielded the chainsaw herself. People in Europe don’t want deforestation products but that’s what this delay will give them,” climate campaign group Greenpeace said in a statement. This is true. The post-electoral Eurobarometer survey found that more than a quarter (28%) of EU citizens were encouraged to vote because of climate change.

“By undermining one of the key achievements of the European green deal, this decision casts serious doubt on the Commission president’s commitment to delivering on the EU’s environmental promises,” said Anke Schulmeister-Oldenhove, senior forest policy officer at WWF.

The effects of the EUDR will reverberate internationally. For example, nearly 70% of cocoa imports come from Ivory Coast, the world’s largest producer of the crop. But the delay has even been criticised by Barry Callebaut, the largest B2B chocolate company. “EUDR requires a lot of effort and resources for compliance from all stakeholders along the supply chain. However, these efforts are important to drive the sustainable transformation in the cocoa supply chain,” it said.

Some MEPs also denounced the move. Bernd Lange, who heads the EU Parliament’s international trade committee, called it a “disgrace”, suggesting that the delay could have been avoided had the Commission released supporting documents months ago. The decision has “prolonged unnecessary uncertainty for everyone involved,” he said.

Stientje van Veldhoven, VP and European director of the World Resources Institute, echoed this sentiment, saying the EU had the technical and financial resources to establish supply chain traceability: “While we recognise the challenges the regulation poses for some producing countries, particularly for smallholder farmers, the focus should have been on easing implementation and ensuring greater support for tropical-producing nations.”

This is not the first time the EU has backed down from a climate commitment. Its pesticide regulation has been scrapped following lobbying efforts, which also successfully stalled or weakened the Sustainable Food Systems Framework, the Industrial Emissions Directive, and the Farm to Fork Strategy, among others.

That said, the EU did hold off lobby pressure to pass its nature restoration law earlier this year. And last month, an EU-funded report by agrifood lobbies asked the EU Commission to create a plant-based action plan by 2026, recognising the need to eat less meat and adopt planet-friendly eating patterns.