After its 12-month deferral, the EU’s Deforestation Regulation (“EUDR”) is set to apply from December 30, 2025.  Many companies are therefore refocusing EUDR compliance efforts. This blog provides an update on the rules and guidance and key, practical takeaways for companies.

The European Commission (“Commission”) recently provided new and updated materials to support EUDR implementation, including an updated Guidance Note and FAQs, a Draft Delegated Regulation clarifying what products are covered by the EUDR (“Scoping Regulation”), and an Implementing Regulation classifying countries according to their level of deforestation risk (which has important implications for the level of due diligence required from companies). 

Clarification and Simplification of the EUDR

The EUDR introduces a ban on the marketing in and exporting from the EU/EEA of a wide range of products unless they are “deforestation-free”; produced in accordance with the relevant legislation of the country of production; and covered by a due diligence statement.  Amidst a broader push to simplify and reform EU ESG laws (see our recent alert), the Commission has introduced a three‑part simplification plan for the EUDR that aims to reduce the administrative burden of EUDR compliance by as much as 30%. 

Proposed Scoping Regulation  

First, the Commission has proposed a new Scoping Regulation to clarify and narrow the products in scope of the EUDR.  As detailed in our previous alert, the EUDR currently applies to the “relevant commodities” (cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soya and wood) and “relevant products” (products derived from relevant commodities) listed in Annex I to the EUDR. 

The Commission’s draft Scoping Regulation proposes to amend Annex I and clarify that the following products do not fall within the scope of the EUDR:

• Product samples sent to solicit orders, and products only used for examination, analysis and testing to determine composition, quality, etc.;

• Products that are waste, as well as second-hand and used products;

• Single‑use and re‑usable packing materials and containers, only when they are used to package another product placed on the market and not when placed on the market as goods in their own right.  The draft Scoping Regulation also clarifies that once a re-usable packing container e.g., a pallet has been used once on the EU market to package or ship other products, it is out of scope of the EUDR from that moment on and for each subsequent re‑use;

• Accessory materials such as user manuals, leaflets, catalogues and marketing materials only when they accompany another product and not when marketed or exported as products on their own; and

• Items of correspondence merely serving a communication purpose (i.e., letters, postcards, and similar materials sent for personal or informational exchange).

Country Classification Implementing Regulation

Second, in May 2025, the Commission finally adopted an Implementing Regulation classifying countries of origin as low, standard, or high risk of deforestation, which is important as it dictates the level of due diligence that must be performed for the purposes of EUDR and level of scrutiny by enforcement authorities.  The classification reflects the level of risk that commodities produced in a country or part thereof are linked to deforestation and is based on factors such as deforestation rates, agricultural expansion, and production trends.  A country is classified as “high risk” if there is a significant likelihood that commodities are not deforestation-free, as “low risk” if such cases are exceptional, and as “standard risk” if it falls between the two.  Per the regulation, 140 countries are classified as low risk (including all EU Member States), 4 countries were classified as high risk (Russia, Belarus, Myanmar, and North Korea), and all other countries were classified as standard risk.  Of note, countries traditionally associated with deforestation risk such as Brazil, Peru, Colombia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo were listed as “standard risk,” not “high risk.”

For relevant products originating in low-risk countries, operators and non-SME traders can utilize the EUDR’s simplified due diligence process.  The simplified due diligence process does not require risk assessments or risk mitigation measures, although it is still a significant undertaking and extra measures will still be required if “relevant information” indicates that the relevant products are non-EUDR compliant.  The classification system also impacts the annual compliance checks that supervisory authorities will conduct.

Several Member States, led by Luxembourg and Austria, have urged the Commission to go further by creating a new “negligible risk” category.  This would allow commodities from countries or regions with the lowest deforestation risk to benefit from an even lighter compliance regime than the current “low risk” classification, potentially eliminating due diligence checks altogether.

Updated Commission Guidance

Third, the Commission has updated its EUDR Guidance Note and FAQs.  The updates cover many different topics, and generally seek to simplify and clarify obligations.  For example:

• Annual DDS for multiple batches/products:  The Commission has clarified that a single due diligence statement (“DDS”) can cover multiple physical batches/shipments of multiple different relevant products (see FAQs 5.19).  The operator or non-SME trader must confirm that due diligence was carried out for all relevant products covered by the DDS, and that there is no or only a negligible risk of EUDR non-compliance.  All relevant commodities/products must be covered by a DDS, so operators will have to update their DDS once they place the full quantity of goods covered by the DDS on the market.  The Commission clarifies that, in any event, an operator must update the DDS each year.

• Authorized Representatives for multiple operators/traders:  The Commission has confirmed that multiple companies (e.g., companies in a corporate group) can, but are not required to, appoint a single Authorised Representative to submit DDS and fulfil other EUDR obligations on their behalf (although the operators/traders maintain ultimate responsibility for complying with the EUDR) (see FAQs 5.2.1). Operators should ensure that their appointed authorized representatives have sufficient resources to perform their mandate.

• Geolocation data:  The Guidance Note also states that operators and traders submitting DDS will be able to decide if geolocation data is accessible and visible for downstream companies.

• Downstream Due Diligence: The Guidance Note states that downstream non-SME operators can refer to DDS that have already been submitted, as long as they “ascertain” that due diligence relating to the relevant products was exercised. (Downstream operators are those who place on the market or export relevant products all components of which have previously been subject to EUDR due diligence – e.g., furniture made from wood that was subject to EUDR.) 

The Guidance Note provides additional color on what it means to “ascertain” if due diligence was conducted, and explicitly states that ascertaining does not necessarily mean that companies must systemically check all DDS that were submitted upstream.  Instead, a downstream non-SME operator could verify that upstream operators have operational, up-to-date, and regularly exercised due diligence systems in place.  The FAQs appear to go a step further, stating that downstream non-SME operators and non-SME traders can ascertain that due diligence was exercised upstream by collecting reference numbers and verification numbers for DDS and verifying the validity of these numbers.  However, the FAQs also make clear that operators and traders relying on upstream DDS still retain legal responsibility in the event of an EUDR breach and may choose to take “possible further steps” to ensure that upstream due diligence was conducted, including by verifying that suppliers have operational due diligence systems

Many other details are addressed in these documents.  While the Guidance Note and FAQs are not legally binding, these documents serve as helpful reference points for companies, and based on experience under other regulatory regimes, competent authorities often apply them strictly. 

Overlap with Other ESG Regimes

The Guidance and FAQs also clarify the relationship between EUDR obligations and obligations under the EU’s Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD) and Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD), both also in flux, as noted above.

Reporting

Under the EUDR, non-SME operators must publish an annual report outlining the steps taken for EUDR compliance.  The FAQs clarify that the first EUDR report (covering the year 2026, the first year after the implementation date) must be published after December 30, 2026 (see FAQs 5.14).  The FAQs also say that companies which have already reported relevant elements to satisfy the EUDR reporting requirements in the context of other relevant EU reporting obligations (i.e.,CSRD) do not have to repeat the reporting (see EUDR, Art. 12(3) and FAQs 9.9), suggesting that companies that publish annual CSRD reports will be able to fold their annual EUDR report into their annual CSRD report.  However, companies should ensure their CSRD disclosures include all information required under the EUDR or provide supplemental details where needed.

Due Diligence

The CSDDD is currently slated to apply to companies no earlier than July 2028, so there will be over two years where the EUDR applies without the CSDDD.  The Guidance Note acknowledges that while the CSDDD and EUDR are different in scope, they are largely complementary and should be applied in a cohesive manner for effective due diligence.  However, where the EUDR’s specific requirements conflict with the CSDDD’s general rules, the EUDR’s rules will prevail insofar as it provides for more extensive or specific obligations in the context of deforestation risk management (CSDDD, Art. 1(3) and Guidance Note, 4(d)).  That said, the CSDDD is more extensive in other respects, particularly with regard to risk mitigation obligations related to adverse human rights and broader environmental impacts, and may therefore require additional due diligence measures beyond those mandated under the EUDR.    

Key Takeaways for Companies

• Review EUDR scoping analysis to ensure it reflects changes proposed by the draft delegated act (i.e.,that companies are applying EUDR due diligence to the correct products).  

• Ensure compliance initiatives take into account updated guidance on DDS simplification and the Commission’s country classification system when preparing for EUDR compliance.  

• Continue tracking developments related to other EU ESG laws for EUDR due diligence and reporting purposes, particularly the EU CSRD, CSDDD, and Forced Labour Regulation in order to leverage efficiencies across the regimes as companies implement compliance initiatives.  

* * *

If you have any questions concerning the material discussed in this post, please contact the members of our Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) practice.

This blog post was written with the contributions of Pol Revert Loosveldt.