EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) Amendments: A Need for Further Clarifications

The EUDR spearheads the recent EU legislative wave towards supply-chain due diligence. Part of the European Green Deal, this regulation aims to ensure that certain commodities (ie, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, soy, cattle, rubber and wood) and their derived products placed on or exported from the EU market are not linked to recent deforestation or forest degradation. So-called ‘operators’ must also be able to prove that the commodities were produced in accordance with relevant national and international legislation, and to trace the commodities back to their plots of origin by providing associated geolocation coordinates. 

The EUDR’s entry into application was postponed a first time by twelve months in December 2024, a few days before its provisions were supposed to come into effect, as policymakers, enforcement authorities and operators were not ready to comply. Given the regulation’s complexity and ambition, discussions on re-delaying and simplifying the EUDR resurfaced in September 2025, initiated by the European Commission citing the EU information system’s capacity limitations as well as the risk of an unmanageable volume of so-called ‘Due Diligence Statements’ (DDS) submissions by operators in this platform (an obligation which operationalizes the regulation). After heated discussions within EU institutions, an amending regulation modifying the EUDR was published on 23 December 2025.

In a previous post, we warned against the key outstanding challenges for an effective implementation of the EUDR, before its second postponement and simplification. This piece analyzes the implications of the amended regulation, identifies key unresolved legal and operational questions, and proposes avenues for clarification and modifications ahead of the planned April 2026 simplification review.

Revised roles and responsibilities to reduce administrative burdens

Under the new text, micro and small operators can now benefit from a simplified declaration regime, yet larger primary operator obligations remain unchanged: non‑SMEs placing relevant products on the market for the first time or exporting them (if produced in the EU) must still carry out full due diligence, including risk assessment and mitigation, provide geolocation at plot level, and submit a DDS through the EU information system (called ‘TRACES’). 

So-called ‘downstream operators’ and ‘traders’ (now formally set on an equal footing), by contrast, no longer have DDS submission obligations. Indeed, the objective of the reform was to mandate relevant commodities and products be covered by only one DDS throughout the product life cycle, and to avoid long DDS chains that in the previous regime created unnecessary administrative burden, overloaded the EU information system and generated significant operational complexity for companies. Downstream operators and traders must still collect certain information, including DDS reference numbers or declaration identifiers when their supplier is a primary operator. They must also take action in cases of substantiated concerns, including verifying whether upstream due diligence was exercised before making relevant products available on the market. 

Although these changes were intended to specify roles and reduce administrative burdens, a number of critical issues remain unresolved and will require further clarifications or legislative refinement, at the latest during the April 2026 simplification review mandated by the new text. 

Must two DDSs cover the same product? 

A core area of uncertainty concerns the interplay between the revised downstream operator/trader regime and the unamended Article 7. Under this provision, when a non‑EU entity places a relevant product on the market, the first EU‑established entity making that product available is also deemed to be an operator. The amended text does not clarify whether, in such cases, this first EU entity should be considered a primary operator and submit its own DDS—creating the possibility of two DDSs for the same product—or whether it should instead qualify as a first downstream operator, merely collecting the DDS reference number submitted by the non‑EU primary operator. This ambiguity has direct operational consequences. If the intention is that two DDSs should exist, it is essential to clarify whether the second DDS may refer to the first (as was possible under the previous regime) and what information it should contain. If an unintended duplication was overlooked by policymakers, the April 2026 review provides an opportunity to amend the text or issue guidance confirming that such EU entities should be treated as downstream and not primary operators in these scenarios. The uncertainty also surrounds cases where non‑EU entities transact among themselves while goods are already in free circulation in the EU, as the amended text did not clarify whether such non‑EU to non‑EU sales could trigger EUDR obligations. The eventual qualification will also impact the applicable regime in terms of responsibilities and liabilities for EUDR compliance.

How to verify due diligence in case of substantiated concerns? 

Verification obligations and liabilities under the new regime remain another area requiring immediate clarification. Downstream operators and traders must still verify that upstream due diligence was exercised in the event of substantiated concerns, yet the amended text does not specify the standard of verification, whether this obligation applies only before products are placed on the market or also afterwards or how downstream operators should fulfil this obligation in cases involving multiple upstream transfers. Guidance is needed to clarify whether verification consists of simply confirming the existence of an upstream due diligence system or whether downstream actors are expected to assess underlying methodologies, risk‑mitigation steps and conclusions. Further, the amended text provides no clear mechanism for determining supply‑chain positions (as those indeed change EUDR obligations), leaving open whether suppliers must disclose their own status as primary, first downstream, or subsequent downstream operators by virtue of the regulation itself, or whether companies must secure this information contractually.

Can we expect changes to the DDS categories in TRACES? 

Additional uncertainty arises from the lack of clarity on TRACES configuration under the new regime: it is unclear whether the previous DDS categories (import, domestic production, trade, export) will remain or whether only one DDS type to reflect the intended ‘single DDS’ logic will be put in place, whether operator/trader roles will continue to exist separately in the system, whether reference‑chaining functionalities—removed from Annex II—will be restored, and whether the system will enable the verification of the validity of upstream reference numbers. 

Use of a conventional reference number or TARIC code for reimports? 

Another significant set of questions concerns the treatment of reimports of relevant commodities and relevant products that were previously released for free circulation in the EU, or of products made from such commodities after they have been exported. Because the amended Article 26 removes the obligation to provide DDS reference numbers at export, re-importers will in most cases not have access to the original DDS reference number covering a relevant product and will thus not be able to provide it to customs authorities upon reimports to prove antecedent compliance. Possible options include allowing the use of a conventional reference number or dedicated TARIC codes to signal that the product or its underlying commodity has already been in free circulation in the EU. In any case, checks on such reimports should occur at audit level, focusing on proof that the products or underlying commodities were previously released for free circulation in the EU, rather than at the level of customs transactional checks, which would be administratively and operationally burdensome. 

Are point-of-sale materials in scope? 

Packaging, labels and point‑of‑sale materials (POSM) also require further clarification. Although printed materials falling under Chapter 49 have been removed from scope, the treatment of printed displays and other POSM classified under Chapter 48 remains uncertain. At the time of procurement, companies often cannot determine whether displays will be delivered filled or empty (which conditions the triggering of EUDR obligations), making it impractical to apply due diligence requirements systematically. Given that such materials serve a promotional rather than commercial purpose, excluding them from scope irrespective of their status (filled or empty) could ensure legal certainty and avoid unnecessary administrative burden, while still preserving the integrity of upstream traceability obligations.

Conclusion - welcomed simplifications, but important technical uncertainties 

In conclusion, while the amended EUDR text provides a more workable timeline and clarifies certain obligations for downstream, small and micro-operators, substantial technical uncertainties remain. Outstanding issues include the obligations under Article 7, the scope of downstream obligations, the configuration of TRACES and DDS types, the management of reimports, verification standards in cases of substantiated concerns and the treatment of POSM. Clarifying these matters through targeted guidance—and where needed, amendments during the April 2026 review—will be crucial to ensuring coherent and consistent application across the EU and enabling companies to implement the EUDR in an operationally viable and legally robust manner. Absent further guidance, inconsistent enforcement across Member States remains a material risk.

Jeroen Truin is a Partner EMEA Operating Model Effectiveness and Christophe George is a Sustainability Regulations Compliance Expert at Ernst & Young Ltd.

The views reflected in this article are the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the global EY organization or its member firms.