Summary of topics and results

Jaana K. Kleinschmit von Lengefeld, Grain Club, noted that the EUDR involves a bureaucratic burden, including for German farmers, to whom the EUDR applies to its full extent. She added that major questions of practical implementation remain unanswered. According to her, immediate solutions from the EU are essential – in consultation with industry.

Dr Thomas Baldauf, BMEL, stressed that we have not been able to put an end to global deforestation and that more effective rules are essential. From late 2024 onwards, only goods that are traceable and deforestation-free will be placed on the EU market. According to Baldauf, this is an important contribution to reducing deforestation. The EU Commission is currently behind schedule with its preparations but Baldauf views the EUDR as an opportunity to make progress in the fight against deforestation.

Christian Grütters, AGRAVIS Raiffeisen AG, pointed out severe problems for its practical implementation: in his view, the EUDR is unworkable and badly prepared by the legislator. In his opinion, there is still a lack of clarification in terms of the documentation to be supplied and a well-established and sufficiently efficient IT system for the large volume of traceability data is not yet within sight. He added that the necessary infrastructural prerequisites for a segregated supply chain are not yet established in the producing countries and that more time is necessary for implementation. Unless these major issues are resolved quickly, it may come to disruptions of supply chains and to exclusions of market participants.

In her video message, Rukaiyah Rafik, FORTASBI, stressed that smallholders will not be able to apply the EUDR rules by themselves. She views support from the EU as necessary, otherwise the EUDR threatens to cut many suppliers in the palm oil sector off the supply chain.

Sascha Tischer, FONAP, backed this up by confirming that for hundreds of thousands of smallholders in the palm oil sector, the EUDR involved heavy burdens because they cannot yet fulfil the new rules from Europe. He added that the EU has so far neglected to consult on the new rules with the large producing countries and to grant large-scale support for their implementation. He also noted that the support announced by the EU has not yet been received by the local smallholders and that the EU needs to increase the effort and speed of its support. He warned that many stakeholders may otherwise be excluded from the supply chain and existing local initiatives be endangered.

Carolle Alarcon, Brazil Coalition on Climate, Forests and Agriculture, noted that stakeholders in Brazil already pursue an ambitious strategy against deforestation. She added, however, that the EUDR is not yet sufficiently aligned with that strategy. In her opinion, this lack of dialogue, consultation and collaboration needs to be eliminated in order for the EUDR to enter into force successfully.

A member of the audience then voiced their support for the EUDR, combined with the suggestion that in view on the practical challenges, a delayed entry into force seemed acceptable. Overall, there was a consensus in the discussion that the global fight against deforestation is vital and that a lot of necessary preparations remain to be completed within very little time until the EUDR can enter into force. The threat of exclusion of smallholders was accepted by all panellists as a problem that needs to be solved at all costs.

Three interactive surveys were conducted within the scope of the panel

Does the EUDR reduce global deforestation?
52.6 % of the participants replied “yes”, while 31.6 % replied “no” and 15.8 % said that they did not know.

What effects do you expect the EUDR to have?
40.7 % of the participants feared that trading partners may be excluded from the supply chain. 29.6 % expected deforestation to be reduced, and 18.5 % expected consumer prices to increase. 7.4 % expected supply shortages and 3.7 % expected no significant effects.

What is the most important step towards making the EUDR a success?
49.9 % of participants viewed the dialogue with producing countries and smallholder farmers as most important, followed by a functioning IT system for administration and enterprises (25 %), fast preparation by all market participants (15.6 %), and financial aid for affected countries and partnerships (12.5 %).