The European Parliament has has voted to relax and postpone the implementation of the Regulation Against Imported Deforestation (EUDR), the pillar of the Green Deal designed to prevent products linked to forest destruction from entering the EU market. The text passed with 402 votes in favour, 250 against and 8 abstentions, thanks to an axis that united centre-right, conservative and far-right parties.
Under the newly approved negotiating mandate, businesses will have an extra year to comply. Large operators will have to comply with the obligations from 30 December 2026, small and micro enterprises from 30 June 2027. The responsibility for due diligence will fall on whoever first brings the product to market, while small operators will have a simplified declaration. Newspapers, books and printed products have also been excluded from the scope. All choices presented as necessary to make the rule more realistic and less burdensome for companies.
Those in favour: we need time, less bureaucracy and more flexibility
Centre-right, conservatives, and parts of the right argued that the EUDR, as it stood, risked translating into an economic brake rather than an ecological tool. The arguments revolved around three demands: greater gradualism, simplified procedures and an overhaul of the IT system needed to monitor supply chains.
According to Coldiretti and Filiera Italia, the postponement responds to real critical issues: overly burdensome rules, risk of internal market distortions, and penalisation for European farmers and ranchers. The stated goal is a revision to include a “zero risk” category for countries such as Italy and a stricter assessment for exporters, such as Brazil.
Opponents: “Hollowed-out standard, risk of greenwashing”
The environmental and progressive front, on the other hand, speaks of a clear setback. Green MEP Marie Toussaint accuses the EPP of “dismantling the text,” joining the right and jeopardising the integrity of the entire regulatory framework. The PD and the S&D group especially object to two elements: the revision of the regulation even before full entry into force and the weakening of traceability, considered the backbone of due diligence.
Postponing and oversimplifying means opening the door wide to opaque supply chains, encouraging environmental dumping, and making Europe’s climate leadership less credible. Annalisa Corrado (PD/S&D) warns that without real traceability the fight against deforestation becomes an empty shell. And PD Delegation Leader Nicola Zingaretti adds, “I think the goals of the Green Deal are sacrosanct. They are right, they should be pursued. Those who do not have this courage are anchored in a vision of the past, because the whole world is moving towards an idea of a sustainable development model. The things that didn’t work about the Green Deal or the need to finance the transition cannot be a reason to destroy the goals of the Green Deal. That is the difference. As Mario Draghi said, calling for €800 billion a year investment from Europe to change the development model, investment should be made in line with those ambitious goals.”
NGOs are also on the warpath, with WWF denouncing a drift that puts at risk forests, climate, and virtuous businesses that have already adapted to regulation. The technical problem of computer systems, they explain, has become the tool for a substantial weakening of the regulation.
The political knot: Europe divided between transition and reverse gear
The clash is the same one that now runs through the entire Green Deal: how fast can the ecological transformation be and how gradual should it be? On one side are those who argue that simplification means making the norm enforceable and acceptable to the productive world; on the other side are those who fear that any postponement is a signal of hesitation just when,, at Cop30 in Belém, forests were pointed out as key to defending mitigation and biodiversity.
The clash is the same one that now runs through the entire Green Deal: how fast can the ecological transformation be and how gradual should it be? On one side are those who argue that simplification means making the norm enforceable and acceptable to the productive world; on the other side are those who fear that any postponement is a signal of hesitation just when, at COP30 in Belém, forests were pointed out as key to defending mitigation and biodiversity.
