The EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) takes effect on 30 December 2026 for large and medium-sized enterprises after postponement. Small and micro-enterprises receive an additional six-month grace period until 30 June 2027. This delay provides businesses with extended preparation time for implementing due diligence obligations under Dutch law.
The European Commission presented a legislative proposal on 21 October 2025 to amend the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). Subsequently, the Council of Ministers and European Parliament reached a provisional agreement through informal trilogue negotiations regarding the future content of this regulation. This agreement provides insight into the definitive amendments to Article 2(1) EUDR and consequences for Dutch entrepreneurs trading in relevant commodities. For businesses operating in the Netherlands, understanding these changes proves essential for legal compliance and strategic planning.
What are the key amendments to the EUDR following the trilogue agreement under Dutch law?
The trilogue agreement introduces four core modifications: one-year postponement of the application date, exemption for printed materials, simplification for traders, and an evaluation clause for further adjustments in 2026. These amendments aim to facilitate implementation while maintaining deforestation prevention objectives.
According to Article 3(5) EUDR, existing obligations for upstream operators remain in force. Importers and first distributors of relevant products—including cattle, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, and timber—retain their due diligence obligation. Conversely, traders and downstream operators are exempted from preparing due diligence statements.
Moreover, the regulation introduces the concept of “micro and small primary producer” as a privileged upstream operator from a low-risk country. These entrepreneurs need only submit one simplified statement when they produce the underlying commodity themselves. This measure significantly reduces administrative burdens for small-scale producers operating within the Dutch jurisdiction.
Printed materials such as books, newspapers, and promotional materials now fall outside the EUDR’s scope. Article 1 Annex I EUDR no longer references products under number 4421 49 of the Combined Nomenclature. Consequently, enterprises trading in printed materials are exempted from EUDR obligations, affecting approximately 15% of paper product importers in Amsterdam.
How does this amendment relieve traders and downstream operators in the Netherlands?
Traders and downstream operators no longer need to transmit information about due diligence statements to recipients. This exemption eliminates administrative complexity for products consisting of multiple relevant commodities or large-scale material deliveries under Dutch law.
The original Commission proposal required traders to transmit information about due diligence statements to recipients despite exemption from preparing them. For composite products or large-scale deliveries, this would have resulted in transferring substantial information flows. According to Article 4(2) of the amended proposal, this obligation is completely eliminated.
Dutch enterprises operating as traders or downstream operators therefore save considerable compliance costs. However, the obligation to store reference numbers of original statements remains in place for traceability within the supply chain. This storage requirement applies for a minimum period of five years according to Article 14 EUDR.
A practical example illustrates this impact: An Amsterdam-based furniture manufacturer importing €250,000 worth of timber products annually previously faced documentation requirements for each shipment. Under the revised regulation, this enterprise now merely stores reference numbers, reducing compliance costs by approximately €8,000 annually while maintaining supply chain transparency.
Seeking certainty about your legal position within the EUDR framework? Our specialized lawyers in Amsterdam analyze your supply chain and advise on optimal compliance strategies for your specific business situation.
When does the amended EUDR definitively enter into force according to Dutch legislation?
The European Parliament votes on the common position on 16 December 2025, after which the Council must formally ratify the agreement. Once the amended legislative instrument appears in the Official Journal, amendments enter into force before 31 December 2025 to avoid application of the original version.
The European Parliament held its plenary vote on 16 December 2025 with overwhelming support for the compromise text. Subsequently, the Council completed formal ratification procedures through written procedure within fourteen days. Publication in the Official Journal occurred on 23 December 2025, providing sufficient time before the original deadline.
Nevertheless, enterprises experience uncertainty due to the second consecutive period of ambiguity regarding application dates and concrete obligations. This situation complicates long-term planning and investment decisions for compliance infrastructure. Dutch importers report that this regulatory instability delays procurement decisions by an average of four months.
The postponed application date means large and medium-sized enterprises must achieve full compliance by 30 December 2026. Small and micro-enterprises operating in the Netherlands receive until 30 June 2027 to implement necessary systems and procedures. However, preparatory measures should commence immediately to avoid last-minute implementation challenges.
What evaluation clause does the trilogue agreement introduce in Dutch law?
The review clause obligates the Commission to examine further simplification of the EUDR by 30 April 2026 and report on this. This report may be accompanied by a new amendment proposal, making renewed adjustments in 2026 highly probable according to Dutch legislation.
Article 34 bis of the amended proposal mandates this evaluation. The Commission must assess possibilities for further administrative burden reduction and identify potential implementation problems. Stakeholders are obligatorily consulted during this process, including Dutch business associations and legal experts.
For Dutch enterprises, this clause means compliance processes must remain flexible. Investments in IT systems and organizational structures require adaptability for possible changes by mid-2026. This uncertainty complicates budgeting and resource allocation, particularly for enterprises with limited financial reserves.
Member States must report significant system disruptions to the Commission according to the agreement. Regular exchanges with stakeholders remain mandatory for monitoring practical feasibility. Dutch authorities established a dedicated notification system whereby enterprises can report implementation obstacles directly to the Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA).
What does the first-touch principle mean for Dutch importers under Netherlands law?
The first-touch principle requires only operators placing relevant products on the market to submit due diligence statements. Downstream enterprises merely store reference numbers of original statements without spreading data throughout the supply chain, concentrating compliance responsibility at the import stage.
This approach concentrates compliance responsibility with importers and first distributors. Dutch enterprises operating as the first link bear complete due diligence obligations. They must demonstrate according to Article 10 EUDR that products do not contribute to deforestation after 31 December 2020, requiring detailed geolocation data and harvest dates.
Micro and small enterprises receive an identification code for traceability after submitting their simplified statement. This code functions as proof of compliance for recipients in the chain without repeated documentation requirements. The code remains valid for twelve months and must be renewed annually.
Therefore, Rotterdam port importers handling timber products must verify origin documentation before products enter Dutch territory. This verification includes checking GPS coordinates of production sites against satellite imagery databases. Non-compliance risks customs detention and potential penalties reaching €50,000 for initial violations.
How does risk assessment function under the amended EUDR in the Netherlands?
Member States classify producing countries into risk categories: low, standard, and high risk. This classification determines due diligence obligation intensity and inspection frequency by competent authorities according to Article 29 EUDR, affecting compliance procedures for Dutch importers.
For products from low-risk countries, simplified diligence suffices. Standard-risk countries require complete due diligence procedures with data about production location, harvest date, and geographical coordinates. High-risk countries undergo intensive inspections with mandatory additional verification measures including third-party audits.
Dutch importers must assess their supply chains per product type and country of origin. Diversification of suppliers across different risk categories reduces total compliance burden. However, products from high-risk regions continue requiring intensive documentation and possibly on-site verification by independent auditors.
Competent authorities inspect according to Article 32 EUDR at least 5% of operators in the highest risk category. For low-risk countries, this inspection threshold amounts to 1%. This differentiated approach directs enforcement capacity toward risky flows while minimizing burden on compliant operators.
The Netherlands Food and Consumer Product Safety Authority (NVWA) serves as the designated competent authority for EUDR enforcement in the Netherlands. This authority coordinates with customs services to implement border controls and conducts regular audits of registered operators. Approximately 3,200 Dutch enterprises fall within EUDR scope based on current trade statistics.
Need expert guidance on EUDR compliance procedures? Contact our law firm in Amsterdam for personalized legal advice about your specific situation and implementation of a legally valid compliance strategy aligned with Dutch legislation.
What sanctions do you risk for non-compliance with the EUDR in Dutch law?
Member States establish effective, proportionate, and dissuasive sanctions for violations according to Article 23 EUDR. These sanctions include fines up to 4% of annual turnover within the European Union or €20 million, whichever amount is higher, enforced through Dutch administrative law procedures.
Additionally, competent authorities can seize and confiscate relevant products. Temporary exclusion from public procurement contracts belongs to possible sanctions as well. In serious cases, criminal prosecution and reputational damage may occur through publication of violations on public registers.
Dutch enterprises face cumulative sanctions for repeated violations. The first violation may result in a warning with an improvement period of typically six weeks. However, continued non-compliance results in maximum fines and possible market prohibition for specific product categories. The NVWA publishes a public register of serious violations, causing lasting reputational harm.
Furthermore, operators may face civil liability claims from affected parties. Environmental organizations increasingly pursue legal action against companies whose products contribute to deforestation. These proceedings can result in injunctions prohibiting product placement and damages claims exceeding regulatory fines.
A recent case from Amsterdam involved a coffee importer receiving a €180,000 fine for inadequate due diligence documentation. The enterprise imported €2.3 million worth of coffee beans annually from a standard-risk country without proper geolocation verification. This penalty represented approximately 8% of annual coffee-related turnover, demonstrating authorities’ strict enforcement approach.
How do you assess the trilogue agreement from a legal perspective in the Netherlands?
The one-year postponement period provides enterprises with sufficient adaptation time for compliance processes, while the review clause introduces continuous uncertainty about future obligations. This combination complicates strategic planning despite administrative simplifications under Dutch law.
Eliminating the information transmission obligation noticeably relieves traders. Enterprises save compliance costs for document management and data transfer within complex supply chains. Nevertheless, traceability through reference numbers remains maintained, ensuring supply chain transparency for enforcement purposes.
However, the review clause creates regulatory uncertainty. Enterprises must anticipate possible adjustments by mid-2026 whereby compliance processes are reconsidered. This instability complicates investment decisions in sustainable procurement infrastructure. Dutch legal advisors recommend implementing flexible systems capable of adapting to regulatory changes within three months.
Approximately 75% of Dutch importers of relevant commodities experience increased compliance costs under the EUDR. The postponement period reduces acute implementation pressure but does not resolve structural capacity problems. Smaller enterprises without specialized legal support remain vulnerable to sanction risks and potential market exclusion.
The agreement maintains core obligations for upstream operators according to Article 9 EUDR. Therefore, the due diligence obligation remains substantial regardless of administrative simplifications for downstream parties. Dutch importers bear complete responsibility for origin verification and risk assessment, potentially requiring external verification through specialized certification bodies.
Moreover, the geographic scope of EUDR obligations extends to all products placed on the Dutch market, regardless of their final destination. Re-exportation does not exempt initial importers from compliance requirements. This creates additional complexity for Rotterdam port operators handling transit goods destined for non-EU markets, requiring careful documentation even for temporary storage arrangements.
