The European Commission has moved to delay the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) by at least a further 12 months, resetting the compliance deadline to 30 December 2026. In a letter to European Parliament Environment Committee chair Antonio Decaro and the Danish Council Presidency, Environment Commissioner Jessika Roswall warned that “concerns over the functionality of the EUDR’s compliance-data platform … create uncertainty for authorities and operational difficulties for stakeholders.” She added that an additional year is essential “to resolve glitches and give businesses more time.”
Adopted in mid-2023, the EUDR obliges importers of palm oil, coffee, cocoa, cattle, timber and rubber to verify at every stage—“from forest to final product”—that their commodities are free of deforestation links. Brussels initially deferred the regulation’s start from December 2024 to December 2025 in response to industry feedback and technical reviews. However, persistent stress-test failures in the IT infrastructure have prompted this second postponement.
At an overnight press briefing, Commissioner Roswall stated that the Commission will engage closely with both Parliament and the Council before formalising the new timeline, signalling a willingness to simplify the EUDR, which could see reduced paperwork and streamlined procedures accompanying the rollout.
Christine Schneider (CDU), lead negotiator for the European People’s Party on the EUDR, described the extra time as “a rare opportunity to build a truly workable system.” Schneider intends to reintroduce her “zero-risk” exemption, which would relieve countries with robust forestry safeguards—including several EU member states—from most requirements. And whilst the Parliament endorsed the proposal last autumn, it was later blocked by the Commission and the Council.
Nonetheless, industry groups warn that another year of uncertainty will not resolve the regulation’s core challenges. Small and medium-sized enterprises account for roughly 70 per cent of the EU timber sector, according to the European Timber Trade Federation, and many have already invested millions in compliance teams, supply chain audits, and IT integration.
“Many businesses have built entire systems to track legal origin and deforestation risk,” said Elena Petrova, the Federation’s policy director. “An extra year of waiting is no substitute for clear, workable rules.” She added that repeated delays erode confidence in Brussels’ regulatory process and penalise early adopters while non-compliant operators continue trading.
Austria’s timber industry echoed these frustrations. Dr Erlfried Taurer, chairman of the Austrian Wood Industry Association, told Wood Central, “Reason has finally prevailed in Brussels—the Commission acknowledges that its own regulation is unworkable. After more than two years of intensive effort, there is still no practical implementation model.” Taurer urged lawmakers to use the delay to tackle “fundamental issues” and pursue “deep simplification—or, better yet, full repeal—of the EUDR’s most burdensome provisions.”
Taurer proposed carving out an “insignificant-risk” category for countries like Austria, where deforestation is virtually non-existent, allowing existing EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) documentation to suffice. He also called for risk-based controls—such as satellite monitoring and targeted on-site checks—rather than blanket due diligence mandates. “Deforestation doesn’t occur in Europe, yet our companies are expected to prove their supply chains are deforestation-free,” he noted.
Meanwhile, ENGOs have condemned the delay, arguing that it is politically motivated and costly. According to Anke Schulmeister-Oldenhove, Forest Policy Manager at WWF’s European Policy Office, the postponement is “a surprising and embarrassing move” that comes “after more than two years of preparation time.” She accused the Commission of caving to “an unprecedented deregulation agenda, throwing the EUDR under the bus.”
“It is probably no coincidence that this move comes right as the Commission pursues deregulation,” Schulmeister-Oldenhove said. “This is unacceptable and a massive embarrassment for President Von der Leyen. If this technical issue is real, it shows not only incompetence but also a clear lack of political will to invest sufficiently in a timely implementation of the EUDR.”
Despite today’s proposal, the Commission stressed that its newly finalised EU-Indonesia trade agreement will not shield Jakarta’s palm-oil exporters from future EUDR obligations. In a technical briefing on Tuesday, officials reiterated that “non-compliance will block market access, regardless of trade deals,” underlining Brussels’ resolve to leverage trade policy in the fight against deforestation.
Some timber suppliers welcomed the reprieve as vital preparation time. “We can finalise integration testing and comprehensive staff training,” said Marco Leone, CEO of Alpine Wood Products. “A sudden switch in December 2025 could have caused chaos in shipments and penalties for honest operators.” Whilst others remain critical of the regulation’s core design. Sophie Müller, head of sustainability at Nordic Timber Group, argued the EUDR “creates a presumption of guilt” by placing the full burden of proof on importers. “We need fact-driven risk assessments and proportionate enforcement, not a one-size-fits-all bureaucracy.”
The proposal will now be taken to the European Parliament and Council, who both must approve the delay before it becomes law. MEPs will debate amendments—Schneider’s “zero-risk” exemption, streamlined reporting for EU-sourced timber and enhanced data-interoperability standards—during the March 2026 plenary, before the Council is expected to vote at its April 2026 meeting of ministers.
