Amendments to the EUDR; what happened and what does it mean?
Update 4th December
After a tense few weeks waiting for news, information was published on 3rd December on the European Trialogue discussions on upcoming changes to the EUDR.
The European Council and the European Parliament confirmed through press releases a provisional agreement for a 12-month delay, pending a vote during Parliament’s plenary session (16-19 December). The delay will be finalised if both Parliament and the Council approve it, and it’s published in the EU Official Journal by year-end. Large operators will have until 30th December 2025 to comply, and micro- and small enterprises until 30th June 2026.
Although the press releases don’t directly mention the "no risk" amendments, it is being widely reported the EPP have withdrawn them, following a letter from EPP’s Christine Schneider MEP to Member States. The letter has not yet been formally published, but aligns with the Council's statement that this week’s agreement will not affect existing rules.
However, the future of EUDR remains under threat. Schneider indicated that from 2028, countries practicing sustainable forest management and showing no deforestation will be exempted from certain requirements. This plan does not have the agreement of the EU, but clearly shows EPP's ongoing intention to change the substance of the rules and reduce requirements for some producer countries.
Soil Association Certification’s Maggie FitzHerbert comments on the news "It is important the 12 month delay is used to get ready for EUDR, and not to buy time for political groups and their donors to make amendments aimed at weakening the law. After a year of uncertainty, businesses desperately need clear direction. Any further amendments, or threat of, perpetuates uncertainty and inaction, and undermines the effectiveness of the law."
You can read Maggie's piece below, originally published 21st November.
Amendments to the EUDR; what happened and what does it mean?
21st November 2024
Last week, the European Parliament voted in favour to adopt last-minute amendments to the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), which passed into law in 2023 with the ambitious goal of limiting commodity-linked deforestation and degradation driven by the world’s largest trading bloc.
The regulation, part of the EU’s Green Deal and initially planned to come into law in December 2024, must now be rapidly modified in the coming weeks with further approval of EU’s Parliament and Council, to delay the implementation date by 12 months, and incorporate other new amendments. The amended legislations cannot be finalised until all parties including EU member states agree. In the past few days there have been reports of objections from EU member states, in particular on the creation of a zero risk category, but no official announcements have yet been made.
What happened in Brussels last week?
The 12 month delay was proposed by the Commission last month (October 2nd), with amendments led by the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest of European Parliament’s eight political groups. The proposal for a delay quickly moved though Council (October 16th) before coming to Parliament last week (November 18th). However, the Council’s reassurance in October that “the targeted amendment will not affect the substance of the already existing rules” has not been honoured, according to Maggie FitzHerbert, Senior Responsible Sourcing Manager at Soil Association Certification.
She says, “In addition to the proposal of the delay, a raft of other amendments were put forward in the short time before Parliamentary vote, including changes that are likely to fuel geopolitical tensions and create legal loopholes.
“Of particular concern is the introduction of a “zero risk” category. As experts in due diligence and supply chain risk, we know there is no such thing as zero risk in the real world of commodity production and trade. There can be negligible risk, but never zero. The concept is not aligned with the principals of due diligence upon which the EUDR was based, and is creating a technical weakness within the law. Due diligence is about managing risk, through identifying, mitigating and reducing it. The justification given for the amendment, stated as “In countries with stable or increasing forest area development, the risk of deforestation under the regulation is negligible or non-existent (Amendment 3)” entirely misses the issue of forest degradation. Increases in forest area is an incredibly crude metric to use within legislation aimed at tackling the climate and biodiversity crises, which is why degradation avoidance was given such prominence in the first place. To make matters worse, there is a real danger that “zero risk” countries are used as backdoors for non-compliant product to come into the EU unchecked, and a two-tier system where some product is traceable and some isn’t. This increases the risk for everyone, rather than streamlines processes. The “zero risk” category has no credibility in science nor due diligence frameworks.
“In my opinion, what’s happened here is a tragedy. This delay undermines years of action and efforts from policy-makers, companies and NGOs alike, as well as the integrity of the EU’s climate and biodiversity commitments. I understand many businesses will be relieved, given the slow progress towards traceability made by some industries, and the additional uncertainty generated by the EU’s late release of the vital Information System (NT Traces), Implementation Guidance and FAQs, and failure to produce country risk benchmarking in 2024 as required.
“The legislation is complex and challenging, but so is commodity-linked deforestation and degradation. Weakening the rules and delaying its start date, just weeks before it is due to enter into application, may in fact make compliance harder in the long run. Another year of unmitigated conversion of forest areas into agricultural land, could make future due diligence harder, as newly converted producer land will be non-compliant with the 2020 cut-off date, leading to more non-compliant commodities on the global markets. It is doubly disappointing given there were other viable, and preferable options available besides delaying the regulation, for example a grace period of soft enforcement, which would have allowed both European institutions and commodity companies to catch up with the requirements.”
Amendments in detail
A total of 15 amendments were put forward for vote to Parliament, the text is available here and the Plenary recording is here (skip to 11:09:30). Shortly before the session, Amendments 1, 2, 8, 13, 14 and 15 were withdrawn, which included proposals for wide exemptions for European Trader companies, and an increased delay to 24 months.
During the vote itself, most amendments passed by an extremely narrow majority, including those related to the creation of a zero-risk category, and associated exemptions. Below are the results of the votes:
Amendment 3: The creation of zero risk category - Passed with 306 votes in favour, 303 against
Amendment 4: The readiness of the Information System and country benchmarking to be at least 6 months before date of application - Passed 324 in favour, 296 against
Amendment 5: Exemptions for zero risk category - Passed 308 in favour, 303 against
Amendment 6: The requirements for companies utilising zero risk exemptions - Passed 308 in favour, 303 against
Amendment 7: Derogations to requirements of Operators utilising zero risk – Passed 303 in favour, 292 against
Amendment 9: Documents required for companies utilising zero risk – Passed 311 in favour and 308 against
Amendment 10: Enforcement checks for 0.1% of zero risk category trade - Passed 314 in favour and 303 against
Amendment 11: Criteria for zero risk countries based on countries forest area, Paris agreement signatory status, and law enforcement – passed 319 in favour, 300 against
Amendment 12: Additional requirements for WTO dialogue – Not passed, 309 in favour, 311 against.
The publicly available recording of the the voting session shows a briefly chaotic scene in the chamber, with people unable to cast votes and loudly protesting. Amendment 6 passed by just 5 votes out of 611 cast, with the audience calling out that the voting machines weren’t working, and although the chair acknowledged they were using a new system, no recount was granted. Members appealed for revote given the sensitive nature of the subject, and Rules of Procedure in event of technical difficulties were read out, but still the vote did not re-open.
What’s next?
The EU has in recent months been under significant pressure to weaken the law; however, the EU needs to refocus on prioritising forest protection and maintaining strong laws that treat all producer countries equally. The EUDR is not designed to be anti-business; rather, it enforces better business practices for the sake of forest protection and a just climate transition globally.
We know from ongoing business engagement that many companies have invested significant time and resource into preparations and are equally disappointed and frustrated by the changes. We also know there are a large number of companies, both in and out of the EU, who are very behind on EUDR. The delay is only buying back some time that had already been lost due to inaction. We call on all businesses to use this delay wisely, and move as quickly as possible towards traceability, with all risks understood and mitigated, and all supply chain information verified and available.
For more information about Soil Association Certification’s perspective on what EUDR means for business, read our earlier blog, or watch this webinar on supplier engagement, NT Traces & FAQs .
For a discussion on our work to support businesses with EUDR compliance, including our next training sessions, email responsiblesourcing@soilassociation.org or visit our responsible sourcing webpage. You can also find the EU’s Deforestation Regulation guidelines here.
