Companies like soy traders and importers have already made substantial investments to meet the EUDR standards, raising concerns about whether these expenditures would be rendered wasteful. Thomas Vaassen, co-founder and CEO of digital compliance tools provider, Meridia, dismissed this notion, stressing that the delay is not a reason to reconsider these investments.
“The regulation is moving forward—that remains the consensus among experts. The additional 12 months are a relief for industries still preparing. Pilot projects, especially those in soy, have proven valuable, helping us understand the practical steps needed to operationalize the regulation and align it with existing country-specific requirements, like the soy moratorium,” he explained.
Vaassen noted that these pilot programs have clarified how to develop “compliance corridors” and traceability solutions, though additional steps remain. Recent guidance from FEDIOL, for example, has been instrumental, but it also highlighted areas where the industry still requires detailed guidance, he commented.
The EUDR, which has been in force since June 29, 2023, mandates that specific commodities and products sold or exported from the EU must be deforestation-free. This includes items made from cattle, wood, cocoa, soy, palm oil, coffee, rubber, and certain derived products.
The law is intended to minimize the EU’s contribution to global deforestation and forest degradation by ensuring that only products produced on land free from deforestation or forest degradation after December 31, 2020, are allowed in the EU market or for export.
With the newly proposed timeline, recently endorsed by the EU Council, the regulation’s obligations would be set to take effect on December 30, 2025, for large operators and traders, while micro- and small enterprises would have until June 30, 2026, to comply.
Data gaps and compliance complexity
The conversation then turned to a persistent information gap. Since December 2023, a lack of comprehensive guidance and FAQs from the Commission left businesses in a state of uncertainty, despite the recent updates released on October 2, 2024.
“I’ve heard from NGOs, activists, national authorities, and impacted companies—it’s been peculiar,” Vaassen noted. “An FAQ was leaked months ago that could have been published much sooner. Political motivations seem to be at play. Many stakeholders cited the absence of clear guidelines as a primary reason for the delay, yet the Commission could have addressed these earlier. It’s challenging for entire industries to invest millions with so much still uncertain.”
Fortunately, some guidance is now available, though the process has been unusually drawn out, he remarked.
Rémi Cristoforetti, CEO of Le Gouessant in France, voiced additional concerns specific to his Brittany-based cooperative. The primary concern with this new regulation is its heightened focus on data monitoring and compliance requirements, he said.
“For example, a recent test with major industry players on geolocating land plots revealed that, out of 10 plots, at least one appeared inaccurately recorded in the sea."
This indicates, he said, that around 10% of data may be incorrectly documented, highlighting significant gaps in reliable data capture.
Moreover, due diligence is a key challenge. The industry is seeking a “reasonable due diligence” process that ensures compliance with global regulations without resulting in excessive paperwork and administrative burdens, he continued.
“However, it’s still unclear how this will be applied across the supply chain, particularly regarding audit requirements."
Discussions with French retailers, for instance, reveal that compliance audit protocols remain undefined, leaving companies uncertain about how to achieve conformity, he added.
The challenge isn’t the principle of the regulation but the practicalities of its application, especially for complex supply chains. “For example, sourcing conventional soy from Brazil and Argentina is manageable due to the presence of organized, large-scale suppliers. However, when it comes to organic soy, the situation is more complex.”
The organic sector in France, for example, faces considerable price pressures and fluctuating consumer demand.
“In our case, we’ve traditionally sourced organic soy from Burkina Faso, but the region’s political instability makes land plot verification nearly impossible."
Alternative sources like Turkey or India have their own regulatory challenges, and there’s limited confidence in their compliance systems for organic certification, claimed Cristoforetti.
This variability in standards shows why additional time is essential for the sector to develop effective compliance mechanisms and adapt to these new requirements, he continued.
“While we support the regulation’s goals to stop deforestation, the implementation strategy must be practical and feasible.”
National authorities and regulatory alignment
As regards the role that national authorities in different countries can play in ensuring EU compliance, Vaassen again weighed in:
“Authorities can set clear inspection protocols and priorities for compliance, which can guide the industry. We've had informal discussions with them, and they're vocal about expectations. If they find isolated deforestation, it may not trigger fines, but if a company lacks compliance measures—no audits, risk assessments, or controls—then action will be taken. They want to see comprehensive systems in place to assess deforestation and legality risks. For instance, they expect companies to trace volumes back to specific plots, providing documentation like bills of lading.
“Competent authorities should also align compliance standards across states, formalize their approach, and make it public to add clarity for the industry. There’s debate around what traceability entails—what level of documentation is needed, or what should be digitized. This clarity could really help."
Ana Bolivar, sustainability manager, at leading Spanish agri-cooperative, COVAP, also commented on how the government could support stakeholders in relation to compliance with the new rules:
"Technical support during implementation is crucial, as we might face unforeseen issues. Preventing initial blockages is important, as the new processes require extensive documentation."
COVAP has collaborated with Spanish industry associations like CESFAC to comply with the regulations, and also relies on guidance from FEFAC, which is the link between feed manufacturers and the EU Commission, said Bolivar.
Potential price hikes
On whether the EUDR will be transformative in stopping deforestation globally, or will just undermine EU competitiveness and raise costs for EU farmers, Frank Chmitelin, executive VP strategy and sustainability, Adisseo, told summit delegates: “The EUDR is another step towards curbing deforestation. While it will raise costs in the short term, particularly for European producers, these could stabilize over time.”
Organizations such as FEFAC estimate a 10-15% hike in procurement costs for EUDR compliant soy products, largely due to logistical constraints.
“We anticipate a 30 to 40 cent per ton increase in soy prices due to compliance with these rules. This poses challenges for us, but even more so for our farmers,” said Bolivar.
In France, where a sizable percentage of poultry is imported, the profitability of domestic producers is under scrutiny, according to Cristoforetti. “Imported poultry, which is less impacted by these regulations, may gain a competitive edge, potentially resulting in a decline in local production."
This regulation adds significant pressure on margins and could make negotiations with retailers more challenging, especially given the postponement of the implementation date, he added. “This year, the burden of these investments falls heavily on us,” stressed Cristoforetti.
Will the EUDR spur action on deforestation globally?
Asked if the EUDR is limited by being a regional-only solution, Vaassen remarked: "Ideally, it should create a level playing field globally. While it may initially seem draconian, the EU has a history of pioneering regulations, like GDPR, which have influenced other markets.”
Vaassen reminded the audience that large companies, particularly in sectors like cocoa, had been advocating for these new rules, saying, “We’re making significant investments, but many other companies aren’t keeping up. How can we compete fairly?” Their push was for regulation that would ensure equitable conditions across the industry, he reported.
China, the largest importer and consumer of soybeans and meal in the world, may not adopt such standards in the near term, acknowledged Chmitelin, as that market often has different priorities.
Compliance case-study
Meridia has worked with one of the world’s biggest soy traders on EUDR compliance. “I can’t share the name, but one of the largest traders, sourcing from Brazil, Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and other countries across multiple commodities, has implemented a well-developed, multi-commodity data strategy. They’ve centralized data from field sources—like farm plot records, attribute data, and chain-of-custody information—into a harmonized system. Our company provides risk scores on farm compliance, assessing plot accuracy, deforestation compliance, and adherence to legal and ethical standards, among others. Each plot receives a real-time compliance score, triggering actions such as quarantine, remapping, or approval. This gives them clear control and insight to provide suppliers with actionable feedback, timelines, and support to meet requirements.”
Accurate, verified data is the first step in effective risk mitigation. Beyond compliance, regulatory demands often shift long-term relationships, requiring clear, data-backed conversations with suppliers, he explained. “This trader’s proactive investment in data infrastructure has enabled smoother transitions and more compliant supply chains, even for soy, as guidance solidifies.”
According to his closing remarks on EUDR compliance, it is important to read the latest EUDR FAQs—"They address key questions on compliance, while also ensuring data accuracy, assessing legality along with deforestation risks. Industry needs to get visibility into their supply chains now, not later. Clarity and early action are crucial."
Alternative protein sources
Seeking a longer-term perspective, we also heard from speakers about how these regulatory developments may drive a reduction in soy inclusion levels in animal diets.
For Chmitelin, a good approach to reducing dependency on soy is using fewer proteins through alternative raw materials and complementing with amino acids and enzymes. “We’ve successfully tested these methods, which allow us to produce high-quality feed with less soy," stated the the Adisseo representative.
Le Gouessant is acutely aware that both protein and energy costs are rising, commented Cristoforetti. “So, we must find alternative solutions. For example, while we invest in protein sources like peas or fava beans, climate conditions have posed significant challenges; this year was disastrous, with yields at only 30% of the five-year average. To address this, we’re exploring small-scale insect farming, using by-products that don’t compete with feedstocks. Our approach involves partnering in Mutatec, where our breeding and veterinary expertise contribute to operations, though we’re only minority shareholders.”
Initial results are promising, although insect meal remains costly. “As fishmeal prices continue to rise, insect protein could become more competitive. Meanwhile, we're working to improve feed efficiency through better digestibility and monitoring at our farms, which will enhance the nutritional value of every ingredient."
Bolivar shared that COVAP is researching various protein crop varieties, both commercial and experimental—specifically beans and peas—to identify those best suited to local climate and soil conditions. "Spain faces a significant water deficit," she explained, "so finding crops that can adapt is crucial for us. And being in the south of Spain, we are especially prone to drought."
