The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) aims to ensure that raw materials and products derived from them, traded in or exported from the EU, do not contribute to deforestation. The regulation covers timber, paper, soya, palm oil, rubber, beef and cocoa. Operators must prove that their products do not originate from deforested areas. Although originally planned for 30 December 2024, the deadline has been postponed again – now to 30 December 2026.
The latest postponement of the EUDR was officially necessary because key instruments – in particular the central IT system for the exchange of due diligence statements (DDS) and country benchmarking – were not yet operational. Member states were also at different stages of preparation.
A societal and political mandate for responsible sourcing
Critics warn that the renewed postponement undermines political will and costs forest area. In 2024, around 8.1 million hectares of forest were lost worldwide, more than half in the tropics (Source: WRI). The link between international supply chains and deforestation is scientifically established and socially recognised.
Against this backdrop, pressure on companies to prepare quickly is growing – despite the delay – as the core obligations of the EUDR continue to apply to timber and timber-based products sold in the EU. And buyers do not wait for political timelines.
A political balancing act is required. Parties and parliaments are urgently called upon to create frameworks that ensure the European economy maintains regulatory ambitions without losing sight of the forests and communities in the countries of origin.
The EUDR has serious substantive weaknesses
As sensible as all these requirements are, their practical implementation faces considerable obstacles, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). Two examples illustrate this:
1. The obligation to pass on registration numbers along the entire trade and supply chain – without those numbers themselves providing additional information about the origin of the raw materials. This leads to an enormous bureaucratic burden with little practical benefit.
2. Extremely demanding requirements for the collection of geolocation data (e.g. polygon data at plot level) are imposed. Such data are often unavailable, inaccessible or – particularly for mixed or batched products – technically difficult to attribute.
Added to this are numerous technical barriers: many companies, especially SMEs, do not have sophisticated IT systems or data platforms. What they need most urgently are pragmatic, lean solutions that match their actual capacities.
Practical proposal for simplifying the EUDR
Given the complex situation described above, we propose limiting origin information to a realistic yet still effective level – namely states or administrative regions (e.g. 'Pará, Brazil' instead of individual plot coordinates).
• ISO codes for states already exist and are internationally recognised.
• They can be easily integrated into IT systems and databases.
• This information is already common practice in the paper industry and is typically communicated via technical data sheets. This information should not represent significantly additional requirements for other industries either.
• The burden on companies remains manageable, while still allowing meaningful differentiation of origin.
• Genetic or isotope technology can be used to reliably verify origin regions.
• For consumers, information such as 'State X (Country Y)' is comprehensible and useful – far easier to understand than coordinates or cryptic registration numbers.
• From a political and regulatory perspective, this meets the objective of transparency and traceability without overburdening small and medium-sized enterprises.