Industry and NGO Reactions to the EUDR

Voices and Positions — Who Supports and Who Criticises the EUDR

The EUDR has generated a wide spectrum of reactions from stakeholders, ranging from enthusiasm for the legislation's ecological ambition to sharp criticism of its feasibility and economic impact. Below we present the main positions.

Environmental NGOs

WWF (World Wildlife Fund) has been one of the most vocal supporters of the EUDR, considering it an essential tool in the fight against global deforestation. However, WWF has criticised the Omnibus proposal as an unacceptable weakening of the regulation and has called for maintaining strict geolocation requirements.

Greenpeace has adopted a similar position, emphasising that the EU must take responsibility for its global ecological footprint. Greenpeace has warned that the postponement of deadlines (see the deadline tracker) sends a negative signal to producing countries that have already invested in compliance systems.

Fern, a European organisation specialising in forest protection, has closely monitored the legislative process and has called for the regulation to cover other natural ecosystems (savannas, wetlands), not just forests.

Timber Sector

The European Timber Industry Federation (CEI-Bois) has acknowledged the EUDR's objectives but has persistently called for simplification of geolocation requirements for timber sourced from sustainably managed European forests. The main argument: Europe already has strict forestry regulations, and the EUDR imposes a disproportionate administrative burden on European operators.

In Romania, timber industry associations have highlighted the specific difficulties faced by small forest owners and have called for recognition of SUMAL as a traceability tool compatible with EUDR requirements.

Palm Oil Sector

Major palm oil producing countries — Indonesia and Malaysia — have reacted strongly against the EUDR, considering it a form of European protectionism disguised as environmental legislation. Indonesia has threatened trade retaliations and has challenged the regulation at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

The European palm oil industry, represented by organisations such as FEDIOL, has called for pragmatism and stressed that sustainably certified palm oil (RSPO) should benefit from a presumption of compliance.

Coffee Sector

The European Coffee Federation (ECF) has warned that the EUDR could raise coffee prices for European consumers and could exclude small farmers in producing countries (Ethiopia, Vietnam, Colombia) who lack the capacity to meet geolocation requirements. The ECF has supported the Omnibus proposal to simplify requirements for low-risk areas.

Cocoa and Chocolate Sector

The chocolate industry, through organisations such as Cocoa Europe, has highlighted the particular challenge of traceability in the cocoa supply chain, where millions of smallholder farmers in West Africa (Ivory Coast, Ghana) supply the raw material. Major companies such as Barry Callebaut and Cargill have invested in traceability systems but have called for more time and flexibility.

EU Member State Positions

Member states have been divided:

• Austria, Finland, Sweden — with strong forestry industries — have called for reduced requirements on European timber and have actively supported the Omnibus proposal
• France, Germany — have taken a balanced position, accepting the principle of the regulation while calling for pragmatic implementation
• The Netherlands, Denmark — have supported ambitious implementation without diluting requirements
• Romania, Poland — have flagged specific difficulties related to forest ownership structures and have called for technical and financial support

Third Country Producers

Brazil has criticised the EUDR as a unilateral measure that disregards national forest protection legislation (the Brazilian Forest Code). Nevertheless, Brazil has also taken preparatory steps, improving its satellite monitoring systems.

Indonesia has been the most vocal critic, demanding renegotiation of the regulation and threatening restrictions on exports of nickel and other strategic raw materials.

Cameroon, the Democratic Republic of Congo and other countries in the Congo Basin have requested financial and technical assistance from the EU to develop their forest monitoring capacities.

The debate remains open and the final balance of the regulation — between ecological ambition and economic feasibility — may well be redefined in the months ahead. Follow developments on eudr.today and consult eudr.live for the updated legal text.