Palm oil producers are calling for clarity from the European Union on the implementation of its Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), as political uncertainty mounts after Austria’s call to ‘stop the clock’ on the regulation’s timeline.
A high-level delegation from the Council of Palm Oil Producing Countries (CPOPC), led by Secretary-General Izzana Salleh, recently concluded a mission to Brussels, warning that the absence of a clear direction risks undermining compliance efforts and market stability.
Across a series of meetings, the delegation underlined that while palm oil-producing countries fully support the regulation’s environmental goals, its rollout must be practical and fair, especially for the communities that depend on palm oil cultivation.
Progress is real
CPOPC highlighted that producer countries have substantially advanced their readiness, with companies aligning their systems to meet the regulation – something no other commodity can claim.
Malaysia’s e-MSPO platform, built around automated documentation and blockchain-style verification, was presented as a cost-effective model for transparent due diligence. Indonesia’s ISPO certification programme has also expanded significantly, with more than 6.2 million hectares certified as of early 2025.
But despite the progress, the delegation said operators still face unresolved technical and operational challenges.
These include data-format constraints such as the shapefile size cap that limits full geolocation datasets, and long export lead times that may result in consignments reaching EU entry points months after their initial order dates, complicating treatment under the new rules.
Industry advisor Pietro Paganini, who joined discussions, described the EUDR as accelerating “an irreversible transformation” of supply chains, driven by AI, drone monitoring, satellite imaging and digital traceability platforms. These tools, he noted, are now “strategic assets”, enabling a higher degree of verification across the sector.
Social impacts at the forefront
CPOPC repeatedly stressed that environmental objectives cannot be met by shifting the burden to those least equipped to comply. The delegation warned that complex requirements risk penalising smallholders and threatening livelihoods in producing regions, ultimately weakening the regulation’s effectiveness.
At the same time, producer countries argued that palm oil also has “good stories to tell” and should not be overshadowed by other commodities in the EUDR debate. They said the EU should recognise progress already achieved across the sector, emphasising that palm oil is part of the solution rather than the problem.
Producing countries have invested heavily in sustainability at the national level, but cautioned that the EU’s approach must respect the fact that there is not just one definition of sustainability.
Delegates also pointed to official data showing that deforestation rates in Malaysia and Indonesia have been declining, which demonstrates meaningful alignment with the EUDR’s core objectives.
Concerns were echoed by European stakeholders. In talks with CPOPC, COPA-COGECA – representing European farmers and cooperatives – cautioned that compliance systems must reflect real-world constraints faced by farmers globally.
The European Cocoa Association (ECA) also warned that long and complex supply chains may not be able to adapt within the proposed timelines.
Openness amid tension
In meetings with the European Commission’s environment directorate, CPOPC welcomed the Commission’s efforts to maintain constructive engagement, noting the importance of sustained cooperation through the Ad Hoc Joint Task Force to align regulatory requirements with realities on the ground.
The Commission’s trade section also signalled its commitment to ensuring continuity, pointing out that disrupted exports would affect European markets.
Austria breaks ranks
Producer countries said Austria’s request has unsettled the debate, arguing that changing the timeline now risks undoing progress made by companies that have already invested heavily in compliance systems.
They warned that reopening contentious elements could lead to delays and political fragmentation among member states.
In response to Euractiv’s query, a Commission spokesperson rejected Austria’s proposal to pause the timeline, saying: “We do not consider a separate ‘stop-the-clock’ initiative to be a politically viable option. Economic operators expect urgent clarity and predictability both on the content and the timing of the law. They need to prepare for both.”
Discussions in Brussels indicated that various forms of postponement have been considered to ease the transition for operators, ranging from six months to two years.
With 15 December set as the critical date, producing countries and market observers await final clarity on the regulation’s future, hoping that predictable, workable rules will emerge rather than extended uncertainty.
(BM)
