Source: European Parliament
Question for written answer E-002176/2025
to the Commission
Rule 144
Letizia Moratti (PPE), Fulvio Martusciello (PPE), Flavio Tosi (PPE), Massimiliano Salini (PPE), Salvatore De Meo (PPE), Giusi Princi (PPE)
The Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) lays down uniform requirements for sectors that are anything but, disregarding the fact that it covers industries and traceability systems which are, along with the producer countries’ processes and risk levels, very diverse indeed.
The EUDR’s scope, the complexity of its requirements and the inadequacy of its interpretative guidelines have resulted in a disproportionate and very burdensome law – particularly for SMEs – a state of affairs that is at odds with the Commission’s aim of simplifying red tape and cutting it by 25-35 %.
In addition, the Deforestation Regulation adopts a punitive and proscriptive approach that could harm operators while failing to meaningfully address the root causes of deforestation.
In the light of the above:
- 1.Has the Commission assessed the economic and social impact of grouping very diverse sectors in the same regulation, and is it truly aware of the extent to which increasing red tape can jeopardise European supply chains?
- 2.Given the above, as well as the fact that the EUDR’s guidelines have only added to the confusion, will the Commission postpone the regulation’s entry into force so that it can systematically revise it, potentially as part of a future omnibus package?
- 3.Instead of simply banning market access without providing any cooperation tools worthy of the name, does the Commission not think that it would be preferable to adopt a proactive, rewards-based approach that incentivises sustainable practices, certified reforestation programmes, voluntary agreements and partnerships with producer countries?
Submitted: 30.5.2025