- The European Union’s recent diplomatic messaging regarding Malaysia’s national palm oil certification scheme has created unnecessary confusion in the market;
- The bloc’s ambiguous language has led to widespread misinterpretation about MSPO’s status under the EUDR;
- At the same time, EU spokespeople have said “no carveouts” for any trading partners.
The EU has sown confusion in a statement with Malaysia, where the EU acknowledged “MSPO certification as a credible sustainability scheme with a high standard digital traceability system that can facilitate operators’ compliance with EUDR requirements.” While technically accurate, this diplomatic language has resulted in a series of ‘whispers’, with journalists misinterpreting this as a regulatory ‘green light’ for MSPO.
The problem? The EU’s own regulation doesn’t actually permit the recognition of certification schemes for EUDR compliance. The EUDR, as currently written, explicitly states that certification schemes “may complement, but shall not replace, the operator’s responsibility” for due diligence (Article 10(2)). Yet by issuing statements that “acknowledge” MSPO’s credibility, the EU has created false expectations.
This was echoed in Malaysian media reporting, which stated that Brussels has “officially recognised” MSPO under the EUDR.
Malaysia’s response was entirely understandable. Plantations Minister Johari naturally amplified the EU’s statement, describing it as recognition of MSPO as “a trusted and future-ready standard.” This was reported through Malaysia’s state media agency Bernama. Up until this point, the statements were accurate.
However, Malaysia’s multiple media outlets then took the next step, reporting this as “officially recognised” under EUDR. Can we blame them? The language from the EU certainly suggested something more substantial than mere diplomatic pleasantries.
But here’s what the EU statement failed to communicate clearly: the EUDR deliberately avoids creating any mechanism for recognizing third-party certification schemes. This was a conscious policy choice, designed to ensure operators cannot outsource their compliance obligations. Key points the EU should have emphasized:
- The European Commission has no mandate under EUDR to accredit or endorse certification schemes
- The EU hasn’t recognized ANY certification schemes under EUDR—not even European ones
The EU’s diplomatic ambiguity in the region has real consequences. Palm oil operators relying on these mixed signals may end up believing MSPO certification alone will satisfy EUDR requirements — a costly misunderstanding that will only become apparent when enforcement begins.
This isn’t the first time the EU’s diplomatic language has clashed with its regulatory reality. The bloc frequently issues supportive statements about producer countries’ sustainability efforts while simultaneously maintaining rigid regulatory frameworks that don’t recognize these same efforts. It’s an approach that manages to frustrate both environmental groups (who see it as greenwashing) and producer countries (who feel misled).
Contrast this episode with a statement from EU spokesman Olof Gil, prior to a Commission delegation visit to India when quizzed about Green Deal measures:
“We have not offered flexibilities to the US, nor have we offered flexibilities to Mercosur countries. What we have said to them is that we are willing, in conversations with them, to look at ways that we can implement EUDR, implement CBAM, and other important policy staples in the most efficient way. Where possible, we want to look at ways that we can work together. This isn’t limited to the US or to Brazil or whoever—these are conversations we’re having with partners around the world because these policies are intended to work globally.
“It will be the same with India. We will discuss the implementation of these important EU policy offerings with India also in the context of our trade negotiations. But no one is getting a pass here. No one is getting carveouts or flexibilities. We’re talking to them about work we can do together to make it work—to make it operate as efficiently as possible and for the benefit of all parties.”
The EU needs to align its diplomatic communications with its regulatory framework. If the EUDR doesn’t recognize certification schemes, EU officials should stop using language that suggests otherwise. Clear, consistent messaging would benefit everyone:
- Operators would understand exactly what’s required for compliance
- Producer countries could make informed decisions about their certification systems
- The market would have certainty about regulatory requirements
Instead of vague “acknowledgements” that create differing expectations, the EU should be explicit: certification schemes like MSPO can be useful tools for operators gathering information for their due diligence, but they cannot substitute for the specific requirements laid out in EUDR.