Member states cite readiness gaps as Washington and other trading partners push back; NGOs warn another delay risks gutting the bloc’s flagship green law

Brussels — The European Union is weighing a second postponement of its landmark deforestation regulation, bowing to mounting pressure from the United States and other trading partners as several EU capitals warn their companies are not ready to comply. The law, which aims to block imports such as coffee, cocoa, palm oil, rubber, timber and other forest‑risk commodities unless they are proven deforestation‑free, was already delayed once and is scheduled to start applying to large operators on December 30, 2025, with small firms following in June 2026.

People familiar with internal talks say the Commission and member states are discussing options that include pushing back the effective date by another year or more while simplifying due‑diligence rules and clarifying how ‘risk’ classifications will work for exporting countries. The push for more time comes after Washington and commodity exporters including Brazil and Indonesia said the law, known as the EUDR, could unfairly exclude smallholders and disrupt trade if rolled out without additional flexibilities.

Diplomatic pressure has dovetailed with domestic anxiety. National governments from at least a dozen member states have argued through the summer that companies — and authorities — are not technically ready for the law’s geolocation and traceability requirements. Industry groups in grain, cocoa and timber warn that authorities still lack fully tested IT systems and that many suppliers in origin countries cannot yet provide the precise farm‑level coordinates and proof of legality the rules require.

The law’s backers counter that another pause would undercut the EU’s credibility on climate and nature policy. Environmental groups and some consumer brands that spent the past year preparing their chains say the EUDR was already watered down by the first delay and that a second would reward laggards while penalising front‑runners. “Every month of slippage means more forest loss tied to EU demand,” one NGO campaigner said.

What the law does — and why it’s hard: The EUDR requires importers and EU producers to prove that listed commodities were not sourced from land deforested or degraded after December 31, 2020. Companies must submit a due diligence statement backed by geolocation data down to the plot and maintain detailed traceability and risk‑mitigation records. Brussels is building a central information system to receive these statements, and it plans to assign exporting countries to risk categories (low, standard or high) that determine the level of checks and paperwork.

In practice, that has collided with realities on the ground. Traceability in smallholder cocoa and coffee sectors remains patchy; land registries are incomplete; satellite data can conflict with local maps; and suppliers complain of costly audits. Companies say they are still waiting for final guidance on how to treat mixed shipments, how to evidence legality in countries with overlapping land claims, and how national authorities will enforce penalties that can reach up to a percentage of EU turnover.

Transatlantic wrinkle: The US has urged the EU to carve out a ‘negligible risk’ pathway for American agriculture, arguing that US producers already operate under stringent safeguards and low deforestation rates. Brussels and Washington in late summer worked on language acknowledging those concerns, and diplomats say a fourth, lighter‑touch risk tier is under discussion. That idea has alarmed palm‑oil exporters in Southeast Asia, who warn that preferential treatment for one partner could invite new legal challenges at the World Trade Organization and erode the law’s legitimacy with developing nations.

Member‑state split: While countries with large food and wood sectors have pushed hard for a slower rollout, others — including several Nordic and western capitals — argue that the compliance architecture is mature enough for the December 2025 start and that further delays would penalise firms that invested early. Diplomats say a compromise could pair a short technical deferral with clearer rules on sampling, documentation thresholds for low‑risk origins, and phased enforcement for complex supply chains like cocoa.

Boardroom calculus: Corporate views are divided. Snack and confectionery makers exposed to cocoa supply shocks have asked for more time, citing high prices, weather‑hit harvests and digital‑ID gaps in West Africa. Other multinationals in packaged goods say they can comply, but want predictable guidance and interoperable data standards. Retailers fret about fragmented national enforcement and the risk of ‘de‑risking’ from vulnerable smallholders, which could undermine poverty‑reduction goals the EU supports through its development policy.

What another delay would mean: For producers in Latin America, Africa and Asia, a second postponement might ease immediate market‑access risks but prolong uncertainty over investments in farm mapping, cooperative registration and deforestation monitoring. For EU importers, it would extend the period of dual‑track sourcing — maintaining both legacy flows and EUDR‑ready channels — raising costs and operational complexity. Politically, it would keep the EU’s signature nature‑protection measure in limbo as the bloc faces pressure to soften other elements of the Green Deal.

Signals to watch: Commission guidance expected this autumn on mixed‑lot traceability and country risk benchmarking; whether member states endorse a ‘negligible risk’ category that could streamline checks for certain partners; and the readiness of the EUDR Information System, including its capacity to ingest millions of due‑diligence statements without outages. Trade diplomacy will be equally pivotal, with Indonesia and others hinting they could escalate challenges if the EU offers de facto special treatment to the US.

Bottom line: The EU set a global precedent by tying market access to deforestation performance. Whether it now delays again will hinge on a narrow political judgment: are the near‑term transition costs — for customs officers, traders and smallholders — great enough to justify another pause, or would a second reprieve squander momentum and weaken the signal to protect forests? Either way, the clock is ticking on credibility: each month of uncertainty invites more lobbying, more legal risk — and potentially, more trees felled.