Stientje van Veldhoven is vice-president and regional director for Europe at the World Resources Institute. María Mendiluce is the CEO of the We Mean Business Coalition.

Europe aspires to be a competitive, innovative and investment-friendly economic bloc. Yet the foundations of such a market – political and financial stability and strong regulatory frameworks, as any economist will tell you – are exactly what the EU is undermining with its handling of the once pioneering EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).

The constant shifts in approach to this landmark law designed to counter global deforestation are bewildering, eroding Europe’s credibility as a stable, predictable market. The integrity of the EUDR suffered another blow last week in a vote by the European Parliament to further delay a year and simplify the regulation, which risks considerably changing the trajectory and the impact of the directive.

With no COP30 roadmap, hopes of saving forests hinge on voluntary initiatives

We call on the EU Commission to avert further horse-trading by withdrawing its earlier proposal to adjust the regulation.

Adopted in 2023 after years of negotiation, the EUDR is a well-communicated commitment to ensuring that goods – including coffee, cocoa, wood, beef and a few other commodities – placed on the EU market are not linked to deforestation or forest degradation. In effect, with the EUDR, the regulation draws a line between goods that deplete scarce natural capital and those that don’t.

Technical IT pause spirals

The stakes could not be higher. The EU is the second largest ‘deforester’ in the world, responsible for roughly 10% of global deforestation, despite representing only 6% of the world’s population. With that footprint comes the responsibility to limit its impact.

Since the directive passed, companies and producer-country governments have invested heavily in improving the traceability and transparency of their supply chains in preparation for the EU’s implementation. Yet the last two years have seen the regulation repeatedly weakened by one delay after another, each defended on ever more ambiguous grounds.

Comment: Investor action is crucial to maintaining progress on deforestation risk

To understand how we got here, it’s worth remembering that the European Commission’s initial proposal for a delay had a narrow and reasonable goal: resolving urgent, unforeseen technical issues with the EUDR’s IT system. There were also some smaller adjustments to reporting rules for micro and small companies directly selling their products on the EU market.

But what began as a technical pause to solve IT issues has spiralled into something far more unpredictable, political and messy. The new proposals approved by the EU Parliament now include another delay until the end of 2026 and a potential review of the impact of the regulation in April 2026, before it even comes into force. This would effectively open it back up for negotiation.

Rainforests suffering

What makes the EU’s capriciousness even more glaring are the near-simultaneous pleas at COP30 in Belém, made in front of many EU states, by Brazil’s President Lula and Environment Minister Marina Silva: to adopt a concrete, time-bound global forest roadmap to halt and reverse deforestation by 2030.

Their message was stark: the Amazon has suffered one of its most extreme droughts on record, accompanied by over 140,000 fires, mostly linked to land clearing for agriculture.

According to WRI’s Global Forest Watch, the world lost 6.7 million hectares of primary rainforest in 2024 alone – an area roughly the size of Ireland, or 18 football fields every minute. Emissions from these fires alone exceed India’s annual fossil fuel combustion.

Three problems of a weak EUDR

Being there, on the edge of the Amazon’s vast and breathtakingly biodiverse expanse, made the EU’s change of direction even more baffling to us. We see three major shortcomings in the EUDR proposals under consideration:

First, the proposal undermines market stability and business certainty. Major multinationals, including Nestlé, Mars, Ferrero, Danone, Olam Agri and Barry Callebaut have publicly warned against delaying the EUDR or inserting a review clause that would alter the contents of the law. They have invested heavily in traceability systems, supply-chain mapping and partnerships with producer countries, all under the assumption that the EUDR would be implemented as agreed. Reversing course now erodes trust, not just in the EUDR, but in the EU’s broader predictability as a market.

Second, delay allows European consumers to continue unknowingly driving deforestation. Most Europeans strongly reject the idea that their everyday purchases – from coffee and chocolate to steak or rubber tires – could be linked to forest destruction. Without the law in force, this environmental harm remains hidden in routine purchases, stripping consumers of their agency to ‘vote’ with their wallets.

Third, postponing the EUDR will slow global progress to halt and reverse deforestationat a moment when forests need urgent protection. Rainforests are far more than carbon reserves; they are the lungs and lifeblood of our planet, powering the global water cycle, sending rain across continents, and sustaining agriculture, rivers and food production for billions of people worldwide.

Commission should act now

The EUDR is not perfect, but the position of the EU Council and Parliament will only lead to more uncertainty. In previous cases, where the political compromise drifted far from the European Commission proposal, it has used its prerogative to withdraw an amended proposition.

The Commission now faces a clear choice: defend the EUDR, secure Europe’s market credibility, help protect forests that sustain life worldwide – or risk eroding all three.

The post Europe must defend its deforestation law – for forests, business and its reputation appeared first on Climate Home News.

Europe must defend its deforestation law – for forests, business and its reputation