EUDR Delay Still Unconfirmed — What’s Really Behind the EU’s Ongoing Debate

The European Commission is weighing another possible delay to the EU Deforestation  Regulation (EUDR), but no decision has been made. Officially, the reason is the readiness  of the EU’s IT systems — a claim some experts question given the modest data volumes  involved. At the same time, major companies like Nestlé and Ferrero are urging the EU not  to postpone, while trade partners such as Indonesia and the United States warn of  economic repercussions. The coming weeks will reveal whether the EU proceeds as  planned or pushes the world’s most ambitious anti-deforestation law further down the  road. 

EUDR Delay Debate: Between Readiness and Responsibility  

The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) was introduced to ensure that products sold in  or exported from the European Union are not linked to deforestation or forest  degradation. Covering key commodities such as palm oil, cocoa, coffee, soy, timber,  cattle, and rubber, the regulation requires companies to conduct strict due diligence —  including mapping the origin of materials and verifying that they were not sourced from  deforested land. 

Adopted in 2023, the EUDR was initially set to apply from December 2024. Later, this  timeline was officially extended to the end of 2025 to give companies and authorities  more time to prepare. Now, just months before implementation, another potential delay is  being discussed in Brussels — and the debate around it is intensifying. 

Concerns Behind the Proposed Delay  

The European Commission has raised concerns that the central IT system — the digital  infrastructure that will collect and process due diligence data — is not yet ready to handle  the expected volume of transactions. Without a fully functional system, there are fears of  bottlenecks and disruptions once reporting begins. This has led to discussions about  introducing a formal one-year delay, potentially moving the enforcement date to  December 2026.

Member States and industry groups have echoed some of these worries, citing the  complexity of the regulation, the readiness of exporting countries, and the administrative  burden on small producers. Several trade partners, especially in Southeast Asia, have  also voiced their concerns. Indonesia and Malaysia, both major palm oil exporters, have  described the regulation as potentially chaotic and burdensome for smallholders. They  argue that the EU has not given sufficient consideration to local realities or provided clear  technical guidance. 

From outside the EU, the United States has also expressed apprehension. American  exporters of soy, beef, wood, and coffee fear that the regulation could create new trade  barriers and increase costs. Some observers have speculated that lobbying from major  trade partners may have contributed to the renewed discussions around a delay, although  the Commission has denied that this is the case. 

Questions Around the IT Justification  

While the Commission has cited IT readiness as the main reason for the proposed delay,  several experts have questioned this explanation. 

Technology specialists familiar with EU data systems have pointed out that the expected  EUDR data volumes are relatively small compared to other large-scale European  databases, such as customs, tax, or logistics platforms, which handle far greater  transaction loads daily. 

This has led some to suspect that the challenge may not be the volume of data itself but  rather the lack of integration, coordination, and testing between the various systems  involved — particularly at the interface between Member States, customs authorities, and  the EU’s TRACES NT platform, which will host Due Diligence Statements (DDS). 

As a result, some critics view the “IT readiness” argument as more of a political safeguard  than a purely technical necessity. 

Strong Opposition from Companies and Environmental Groups  

While parts of the industry support postponement, many others are firmly against it. In  early October, several multinational companies — including Nestlé, Ferrero, and Mars —  sent a joint letter to the European Commission urging it not to delay the regulation. They  argued that postponing implementation would undermine confidence in the EU’s climate  leadership and penalise those companies that have already invested heavily in traceability  and compliance systems. 

Environmental organisations have taken an equally firm stance. WWF and other NGOs  have warned that further delays will weaken the EU’s credibility on sustainability and risk  opening the door to attempts to water down the regulation. They stress that deforestation  continues at an alarming pace and that the EUDR is one of the few global policy  instruments capable of slowing it down. 

The Decision Is Not Yet Made  

It is important to note that the delay has not been officially approved. The European  Commission is expected to present a proposal in the coming days, but this will still need  to pass through the European Parliament and the Council. Both institutions may push 

back, especially members of Parliament who have been vocal in defending the original  schedule. 

Even if a delay is formally proposed, it may not include changes to the substance of the  regulation itself. However, some stakeholders fear that extending the timeline could open  up broader renegotiations, leading to simplifications that would weaken the law’s intent —  such as adjustments to the risk benchmarking system or the scope of due diligence  requirements. 

What a Delay Would Mean  

A one-year delay would offer more time for the Commission to finalise and test the IT  platform, for Member States to build enforcement capacity, and for exporters —  particularly in developing regions — to adapt their systems. For many smaller producers  and trade partners, this could provide valuable breathing room. 

However, postponing implementation would also prolong uncertainty for businesses that  have already invested in compliance, and it would delay the environmental benefits that  the regulation is designed to achieve. Moreover, every postponement risks undermining  confidence in the EU’s ability to deliver on its sustainability commitments. 

EAS: Turning Complexity Into Clarity  

At EAS, we continue to monitor the evolving EUDR discussions closely. Whether the  regulation takes effect in 2025 or 2026, one thing is certain — businesses selling to the  EU will need efficient, automated solutions to meet the due diligence and reporting  requirements. 

EAS is a compliance SaaS company that simplifies complex cross-border regulations  through automation. Our platform already supports thousands of companies from over 60  countries in meeting EU and UK requirements for VAT, product safety, customs data, and  now EUDR compliance. 

Our goal is to remove manual work, ensure accuracy, and make European compliance as  seamless as possible for international merchants. Whatever direction the EU takes in the  coming weeks, EAS will continue to provide the automation and expertise businesses  need to stay ahead.