The problems surrounding the European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) continue – the regulation is being criticised, and the methods and means of applying it called into question. In a letter published in the Financial Times on 23 July 2024, the Director of Public Affairs of the European Confederation of Woodworking Industries (CEI-Bois), Paul Brannen (Paul Brannen), highlights the problems and unintended consequences created by the EU Deforestation Regulation. Despite its good intentions, the EUDR has drawn considerable criticism over its practical shortcomings, particularly from countries in the southern hemisphere.

In his letter, P. Brannen refers to an opinion piece by Alan Beattie (Alan Beattie), "Brussels cannot see the deforestation for the policy jungle", which sets out the various difficulties and problems faced by European Union companies as they try to achieve compliance with the regulation. The aim of the EUDR is to ensure that products placed on the EU market and exported from the EU are not linked to deforestation and forest degradation. However, implementing these new legal obligations has proved to be a difficult and extraordinarily bureaucratic task.

One of the main problems is the excessively onerous requirements set out in the regulation. It is worth recalling that even the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen (Ursula von der Leyen), criticised such "burdensome micromanagement" in a recent pre-election speech to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. The EUDR's stringent requirements have created considerable difficulties for businesses. On the whole, the regulation is regarded as a striking example of excessive legislative complexity. It should be noted that this is not the only piece of European legislation of its kind that has to be dealt with.

A particularly contentious issue is the short deadlines set for achieving compliance. An independent third-party legal assessment found that the new obligations have to be implemented within an unprecedentedly short timeframe compared with other European legislation. Large companies must have the rules fully in place by 30 December 2024, and small companies by 30 June 2025 respectively. The short transition period has created a situation in which it is all but impossible for companies to meet the targets set out in the regulation within the stated deadline.

In addition, the obligations laid down in the regulation are described as "objectively unclear." The European Commission has had to publish 86 (!) answers to questions from industry representatives about how the regulation should be interpreted, with a further 40 answers expected shortly. To date, more than 100 "answers" (clarifications) prepared by the European Commission have been needed in relation to the regulation's 37 articles in order for them to be correctly understood. Such an evident lack of clarity only compounds the implementation problems facing businesses.

In his letter, CEI-Bois Director of Public Affairs Paul Brannen calls on the EU to set a deadline for implementing the EUDR that is appropriate to the situation, so that deforestation and illegal logging can be tackled effectively, explaining that without a reasonable extension of the deadline the regulation's aims cannot be turned into positive results and the European timber industry will continue to face considerable difficulties.

The intentions behind the EUDR are undoubtedly very noble, since its aim is to protect the world's forests and promote sustainable practices; nevertheless, the path to achieving these aims involves many practical difficulties and regulatory burdens that need to be addressed. The regulation appears to have been drawn up without taking account of a wide range of aspects, the ambiguity of the situation, differences between countries, and the scope for practical application. As P. Brannen's letter points out, a more flexible and clearer approach is needed to ensure that the regulation achieves its purpose without placing an unnecessary burden on the sectors to which it applies.

The EUDR is not the only problematic piece of European Union legislation. The Nature Restoration Regulation, for example, is also full of contradictions, hard to implement and weighed down with unclear requirements. For some countries with differing geographical conditions (Latvia, for instance), it will be quite complicated to implement. Very large areas that are currently in economic use will have to be "taken out" of economic circulation. This could have a sharply negative impact on these countries' economies and on the social situation as a whole.