The US to EU: “EUDR is unfeasible: delay it”

The US to EU: “EUDR is unfeasible: delay it”

“The EUDR regulation is unfeasible” because it poses “critical challenges” to which US companies are unable to respond. That is why it cannot be expected to be implemented from 30 December 2024, as the EU would like, except at the cost of placing “unnecessary constraints” on international trade. The US government, the Financial Times reveals, in a letter dated 30 May formally asked the European Commission to delay the so-called Anti-Deforestation Regulation until a later date.

The EUDR Regulation is unfeasible”

You can agree with the EUDR Regulation in its aims: to ensure that products traded in the European Union do not come from territories subject to deforestation (or, more generally, environmental and social degradation practices). It is much less so in the suggested methods, however, as well as in the timing of adoption. With the letter signed by Gina Raimondo (Secretary of Commerce), Tom Vilsack (Agriculture) and Katherine Tai (Trade Advisor to the President’s Cabinet), the Biden Administration is now asking the Commission not to rush.

“The regulation imposes unfeasible requirements”, are the excerpts from the text published by the FT. “These would unnecessarily restrict trade in products from low-risk countries that have responsibly managed supply chains, like the United States. We therefore urge the Commission to delay the implementation of the regulation and the subsequent application of sanctions until the substantive challenges have been addressed”.

The chorus of criticism

There is discontent about the timing of the regulation on this side of the Atlantic as well. Indeed, the Austrian government, supported by 22 EU countries (including Italy), has called for its application to be delayed until 2025. The tanning industry has also repeatedly pointed out its technical limitations. Limits that threaten to turn into feral risks precisely because of the tight timeframe in which compliance is required. From the Commission, meanwhile, they confirmed to the FT that they had received the Biden administration’s letter and that they will “respond in due course”. We shall see how.

Photo Shutterstock

Read also:


Choose one of our subscription plans

Do you want to receive our newsletter?
Subscribe now