- Splits over the EUDR intensify as Commission’s proposal is roundly rejected by farmers and Member States;
- As RSPO meets in Kuala Lumpur, key Malaysian officials call out members for continuing to use ‘no palm oil’ labels.
Splits Deepen Over EUDR Delay Proposal
Internal divisions within the European Union over the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) appear to be intensifying.
Member States, the European Parliament, and agricultural groups have roundly rejected the European Commission’s narrow proposal to delay enforcement.
The Commission’s October 21 proposal, championed by Vice President Teresa Ribera, would exempt only SMEs from compliance for 12 months while suspending penalties for all operators for just six months.
The backlash was immediate. FEFAC, the organisation for animal feed suppliers, said: “FEFAC considers the new [EUDR] Commission proposal as completely unacceptable and a blatant breach of trust, as it contradicts the earlier public announcement in September 2025 on a likely 1-year postponement of the entry into force.”
COCERAL, the trade association for bulk commodities, said: “The timeline for implementing the EUDR … still “presents unresolved challenges that threaten the stability of the soybean supply chain.”
French organisation for paper manufacturing, COPACEL, stated: “”It is time for co-legislators to realize how much this chaotic management of the EUDR is discrediting EU policies.”
Itay’s farm and forests group Confagricoltura said “It is objectively unrealistic to expect companies to be ready to comply straight away with a regulation that has been hastily renegotiated just two months before it comes into force.”
These views were echoed by Italian leather organisation Cotance.
Within the Council, the demands of the member states became apparent.
Austria emerged as the most vocal critic, issuing a detailed communication on October 31 calling for a comprehensive one-year “Stop-the-Clock” on EUDR implementation for all operators. Vienna’s position goes beyond mere delay, demanding substantive revisions including risk-based country categorization with exemptions for low-risk areas, concrete simplification measures such as de minimis thresholds, and recognition of existing certification systems.
The Austrian proposal emphasized the need for “genuine discussions on effective simplifications” rather than what it characterizes as a rushed adoption process under time pressure.
Austria’s Agriculture Minister Norbert Totschnig said the proposal was a disappointment for Austria and that the saying the Commission has given member states a “take it or leave it” proposal.
A critical European Council meeting this week is expected to produce a compromise proposal from the Danish presidency that could push toward a full 12-month delay for all operators, not just SMEs.
However, any progress requires alignment between the Council and Parliament positions – there’s very little time for new negotiations.
But there’s also a warning here.
The EU Omnibus Bill – which is similarly a ‘Green Deal’ initiative – has been subject to political wrangling and simplification that may be watered down further.
There’s a possibility that the EUDR could follow the same path.
RSPO: Plus ca change
The annual RSPO Roundtable is taking place in Kuala Lumpur this week. Despite the EUDR remaining the clear elephant in the room for many palm oil observers, the usual positions remain in place.
Malaysian Palm Oil Board (MPOB) chairman Datuk Mohamad Helmy Othman Basha came out swinging against RSPO members that continue to use ‘No Palm Oil’ labels in their marketing.
Helmy stated:
“There are brands that sit with us at the same table that claim to believe in sustainable palm oil, yet proudly sell products that say ‘No Palm Oil’. What message does that send to consumers? What does it say about partnership? If we are truly partners, then our advocacy must match our membership. Our words must match our actions.”
“We cannot preach sustainability in this room but reinforce the old rhetoric that palm oil is bad. Make no mistake, when you advertise the absence of palm oil, what you are saying is, ‘This product is good because there is no palm oil in it.”
Seasoned observers will remember that exactly a decade ago, RSPO introduced a rule on Market Communications and Claims. This made prohibited claims by RSPO members that
“implies that the removal of palm oil from a product is a preferable social or environmental sustainability outcome to the use of certified sustainable palm oil… This includes any communications which would create a negative perception of RSPO or its related objectives.”
Now, the response to this from those members is likely to be that these aren’t environmental claims, and that they are perhaps health claims.
But does that really wash? The health claims against palm have always been spurious at best. And they take on a different meaning with the entire ‘seed oil free’ movement. It seems in palm oil that some things never change.