EUDR Update: Legislator’s Remorse? | #PodSaveChocolate Ep 137
Episode 137 explores some implications of a recent vote by the EU Parliament to amend the EUDR, as well as calls to delay (again) it coming into force. [Updated to include links to other episodes dedicated to EUDR coverage.]
When and Where to Watch
Links below to watch LIVE and to view the archived episode.
Click on this (shareable) link to watch on YouTube. Please subscribe (free!) to the @PodSaveChocolate YouTube channel, like this video, comment, and share this episode to help grow the #PSC community.
Watch and comment LIVE or view the archived episode on LinkedIn. Join my network on LinkedIn to receive notifications and to refer business to each other.
Watch and comment LIVE or view the archived episode on TheChocolateLife page on Facebook (for 30 days, then watch the archive on YouTube).
Follow TheChocolateLife on Facebook to receive notifications and catch up on other content.
Episode 137 Overview
TL;DR
With less than six months before the EUDR becomes law, the latest draft changes would drastically weaken ⋯ i.e., completely undermine and derail ⋯ the original purpose and intent of the legislation and have blowback implications for the CSDDD and related initiatives.
The EU Parliament voted (on July 9th) to amend the EUDR with two-thirds of EU ag ministers pushing for a “no risk” category.
Although the vote is non-binding, the vote signals that pressure is growing to revise the legislation.
Recap: The EUDR is NOT designed to “wipe out deforestation from EU supply chains.” It was created to eliminate future deforestation from “at-risk” commodities ⋯ soy, palm oil, rubber, cocoa, coffee, beef, and timber.
Different actors are urging changes and delays for different reasons, pointing fingers for their reasons at challenges at each end of the supply chain. But one fact seems to stand out: No EU Member State (nor EU central governance) is prepared to manage the cost and drain on other resources that the onslaught of data compliance reporting, oversight, and other tasks will require.
Raising objections after the horses have fled the barn (click the 🔽 » to expand)
In a letter signed by the Ag ministers of two-thirds of EU Member States, the ministers pointed out: “Instead of targeting deforestation where the risk is highest, the regulation imposes disproportionate bureaucratic obligations on countries where deforestation is demonstrably insignificant.”
Those objections are, in my opinion, a strawman of the purpose and intent of the EUDR and how it reveals the abandonment of responsibility by the EU, Big Chocolate, and other actors.
The “Negligble Risk” Loophole
Proposed draft changes introduce a new risk tiering system that includes 'negligible' or 'very low' risk countries. Commodities originating from, or transiting through, these designated countries could be:
Exempt from key due diligence checks, including plot-level GPS data and supply chain mapping
Subject to reduced enforcement scrutiny, even for high-risk commodities like cocoa
Cleared for EU import without full traceability or deforestation risk assessment
— Source: Cocoa Radar
Other Proposed Amendments
The “negligible risk” classification is part of a broader package of proposed revisions:
Reuse of due diligence statements: Allowing annual, rather than shipment-specific filings
“No-risk” country status: An even lighter-touch category under which no due diligence is required
Delayed or staggered implementation: Several Member States, including Austria, Italy, and Luxembourg, have urged postponement of enforcement, citing competitiveness and administrative burdens
— Source: Cocoa Radar
Who’s Also Pushing for Delays?
In addition to the EU Member States mentioned above (Austria, Italy, and Luxembourg), Mondelēz is pushing for another twelve-month delay because “... it doubts that smallholder farmers will be ready,” according to Mondelēz’s EU VP for Communications and Government Affairs. Successful implementation must reflect “... on-the-ground realities [...] especially for smallholder farmers in the countries of origin.”
Lavazza is also lobbying for delays.
— Source: Confectionery News
Who is Against Delays?
Mars has publicly joined other major food and drink manufacturers—including Nestlé, Tony’s, Ferrero (which recently purchased WK Kellog), and Unilever—in opposing any more delays.
Hershey’s public stance on the negligible risk draft is not documented, and it has not joined calls to delay implementation.
EUDR home page on the EU website,
Prior Episodes With EUDR in the Title
Clay Gordon
Clay Gordon
Clay Gordon
Questions?
If you have questions or want to comment, you can do so during the episode or, if you are a ChocolateLife member, you can add them in the Comments below at any time.
Episode Hashtags and Socials
#EUDR
#cocoa #cacao #cacau
#chocolate #chocolat #craftchocolate
#PodSaveChoc #PSC
#LaVidaCocoa #TheChocolateLife
Future Episodes
#PodSaveChocolate and #TheChocolateLifeLIVE Archives
To read an archived post and find the links to watch archived episodes, click on one of the bookmark cards, below.
Clay Gordon
Clay Gordon
Audio-only podcasts