By Christopher Burke
The EU’s deforestation law (EUDR) covering commodities including coffee, cocoa, soy, palm oil, beef, leather, rubber and timber faces further delays until 2026. Far from weakness, postponement allows capacity building, smallholder inclusion, credible enforcement systems and transparency to ensure the regulation delivers real impact rather than symbolic compliance.
The latest proposal from the European Commission to push the enforcement of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) to December 2026 should not be perceived as capitulation to political pressure or regulatory timidity. The delay presents an opportunity to bridge the gap between ambition and feasibility; protecting not only forests, but the rule of law that provide regulations weight.
Adopted in 2023, the Regulation 2023/1115 requires companies trading commodities comprising coffee, cocoa, soy, palm oil, beef, leather, rubber and timber to ensure their products are both legally produced and deforestation-free. Operators and traders must conduct due diligence, including collecting geo-location data, tracing supply chains and assessing risks before placing goods on the EU market.
The architecture of the EUDR has outpaced the systems needed to support it. Originally slated for enforcement in December 2024, the regulation was postponed to December 2025 for large firms and June 2026 for smaller ones. The additional delay now under consideration reflects recognition that key elements remain insufficiently operational. In a September 2025 letter, the Commission acknowledged its information system may not handle the full transaction load, risking long disruptions to operator registration, due diligence statements and customs checks. The Commission insists these issues are operational; however, others point to political considerations including lobbying from Washington under pressure from the American Forest and Paper Association.
The central problem lies in the cascade of dependencies embedded in the regulation. Due diligence requires multiple linked elements comprising geo-location, risk assessment and supply chain tracing that depend on a functioning IT infrastructure capable of accommodating, validating and cross-checking large volumes of data. The Commission concedes these capabilities are not yet ready. Without adequate verification capacity in member states, enforcement will be uneven, risking the perception of the regulation as a selective trade barrier rather than a uniform standard.
Critics describe the IT shortfalls as a convenient pretext for postponement. Others frame these as a tactical justification to delay enforcement. Even the most advanced digital systems cannot compensate for weak institutional readiness or opaque supply chains. Credibility is not conferred by announcing a start date; it depends on whether rules can be applied consistently and enforced evenly across markets.
Reviews of zero-deforestation commitments show companies struggle most with indirect sourcing and smallholder integration where gaps in capacity and governance are most acute. Firms often struggle to trace indirect flows and concluded that success requires structural investment in local institutions rather than reliance on regulatory mandates alone. One study evaluated 28 zero-deforestation initiatives and found that vulnerable producers must be supported through capacity building, not simply left to adjust. Many commitment-based approaches remain narrow in scope and risk leakage unless situated in broader policy mixes.
Lack of reliability is the norm in the majority of producer countries. Many smallholders lack maps, formal tenure documents and technical capacity for geo-location. A study of smallholder participation in Indonesia’s deforestation-free schemes identified persistent gaps in training, coordination and equity. An analysis by Germanwatch analysis emphasizes that downstream actors must provide financing, training, traceability tools and institutional support such as cooperatives to avoid exclusion of smallholders. The Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP) warns that traceability requirements may only be feasible for consolidated supply chains unless national systems are significantly strengthened.
Premature enforcement risks creating a façade of compliance. Firms able to demonstrate surface-level conformity would gain access, while others would be excluded or forced into informal channels. Such outcomes would entrench, rather than correct, the asymmetries the regulation is designed to address.
Environmental regulations and ESG standards increasingly function as instruments of commerce and influence in today’s geo-political environment. If the EUDR is selectively enforced favoring countries or firms with greater resources or closer ties; those excluded will perceive it as a disguised trade barrier. Exporting nations have welcomed the postponement noting the operational flaws and risks of trade distortion. The Malaysian Palm Oil Council described the delay as necessary to address structural concerns and prepare for implementation.
The proposed delay should not be perceived as passivity, but as an incubation period providing an opportunity to reinforce the foundations for enforcement. Institutional readiness must be prioritized and measured transparently. A public dashboard could track IT system performance such as latency and error rates alongside metrics including member-state inspection capacity, operator registrations and supply chain uptake. Explicit, auditable milestones would ensure progress is visible and verifiable.
Pilots across diverse commodities could be deployed to stress-test the system under real conditions. These pilots could trace supply chains end-to-end from smallholder farmers through aggregators and exporters while conducting geo-location checks and field audits. Documenting false positives and negatives, bottlenecks and delays would provide vital evidence for refining enforcement. Remote sensing technologies could be validated against local land records to confirm detection thresholds and build confidence in results.
Ensuring smallholder inclusion should be a central priority. Affordable geo-location tools, subsidized mapping, farmer training and strengthened cooperatives are essential. Downstream actors should share the burden of capacity building rather than pushing costs onto producers alone.
Clarity on regulatory simplifications is also vital. Proposals circulating in Brussels include the creation of “very low risk” or “no-risk” country tiers. Without transparent, evidence-based criteria subject to regular review, these risk diluting the regulation. The IDOS Institute has warned that weakening standards in this way would undermine both environmental outcomes and the EU’s credibility.
The Commission could also issue sector-specific guidance including manuals, model audits and template due diligence processes to reduce ambiguity. Harmonizing definitions and thresholds across sectors would minimize opportunities for regulatory arbitrage and limit disputes.
The revised enforcement date must be treated as politically and legally binding. Launching the EUDR once preparatory indicators are on track will instill confidence in stakeholders that the deadline is real. Framed as a strategic pause rather than retreat, the delay can strengthen credibility rather than erode it. The world is watching how Europe manages regulatory ambition under stress. The power of such regulation lies does not lie in declarations of intent, but enforceability and predictability.
Launched prematurely, the backlash will be immediate. Litigation, diplomatic friction, retaliatory trade measures and reputational damage. A later start supported by robust systems and tested mechanisms will establish the EUDR as a durable global benchmark rather than a hollow slogan. Execution matters more than timing. Credibility requires that ambition be matched by capacity and that rules embody not only aspiration but institutional legitimacy.
About the Author
Christopher Burke is a senior advisor at WMC Africa, a communications and advisory agency located in Kampala, Uganda. With over 30 years of experience, he has worked extensively on social, political and economic development issues focused on governance, the environment, agriculture, extractives, public health, communications, community mobilization, advocacy, peace-building and international relations in Asia and Africa.
