Controversy over ‘no risk’ class as MEPs back EUDR delay
MEPs decided to postpone the regulation’s obligations by one year, allowing companies additional time for compliance. Under the revised schedule, large operators and traders must meet these obligations by December 30, 2025, while micro- and small enterprises have until June 30, 2026.
This decision follows concerns from EU member states, non-EU countries, and industry stakeholders who argued they could not fully comply with the original 2024 deadline. In response, the EU Commission proposed a one-year extension, which the Parliament approved in October 2024 through an urgency procedure. Today, it approved the postponement with 371 votes to 240 and 30 abstentions.
Notably, the EU Parliament also adopted additional amendments, including the creation of a new “no risk” category for countries where deforestation risk is deemed negligible or non-existent. This classification, intended for countries with stable or increasing forest areas, joins the existing “low,” “standard,” and “high” risk categories.
The new category was one of 15 amendments proposed by the center-right European People's Party (EPP), which withdrew six of their amendments—including proposals for a two-year extension and the exclusion of traders from the due diligence requirements—shortly before the vote.
Read more: Brazil's historic soy moratorium under threat
Read more: How does the one-year EUDR extension impact traders, feed and livestock companies
Campaigners aghast
The "no risk" classification has sparked criticism from several quarters.
Speaking to Euractiv, Felipe Spaniol of Brazil’s Confederation of Agriculture and Livestock, an employer's organization representing over five million small, medium, and large-scale farmers, labeled the new category as “discriminatory,” arguing that it highlights the EUDR’s bias.
Julia Christian, a campaigner from the forest rights NGO Fern, agreed. She criticized the amendment as “green protectionism” that might unfairly benefit EU forested countries while stoking tensions with non-EU producers.
Christian further condemned the EPP’s influence, suggesting that “right-wing" forces have undermined the EU's deforestation initiatives for political leverage. She called for the Commission to withdraw its proposal, citing the EPP’s disregard for democratic processes and lack of consultation with affected businesses.
Also alarmed by the changes tabled was Trase: "The most damaging of the approved amendments is the introduction of an additional ‘no risk’ category which has not faced the necessary scientific scrutiny, but could drastically affect how the regulation applies to imports from many countries."
Environmental advocacy group, Mighty Earth, echoed these concerns. Policy director, Julian Oram, warned that the “no risk” category could weaken the EU's environmental leadership by allowing deforestation, degradation, and illegal practices to go unchallenged in some regions. He also noted potential for an increase in commodity smuggling from high-risk areas through “no risk” countries, undermining the regulation’s intent.
In addition to frustrations over the substance of the amendments, Oram noted that some MEPs expressed dissatisfaction with the voting process itself. Due to a technical issue, several MEPs were unable to cast their votes, and a request to re-run the vote was denied, adding to the controversy surrounding the day’s proceedings, the campaigner reported.
"This is by no means a done deal, as the Commission and member states could reject these amendments," he stressed.
The file will now return to committee for further interinstitutional negotiations. For the EUDR changes to become law, the final text must be endorsed by both the EU Council and Parliament and published in the EU Official Journal.
