The European Commission’s May 2026 EUDR Simplification Package has been broadly welcomed by the global beef sector, particularly the proposal to remove cattle hides, skins and leather from the scope of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR). However, industry stakeholders continue to express concerns that the latest simplifications disproportionately benefit EU producers while leaving third-country exporters facing more complex compliance obligations.

Several third countries have welcomed efforts to reduce administrative burdens but argue that the package does not adequately recognise the negligible deforestation risk associated with beef production in certain exporting territories. Industry groups continue to advocate for a negligible risk category that would allow simplified due diligence requirements and more proportionate compliance measures for low-risk 3^rd countries.

Another central issue remains parity between EU and non-EU operators. Under the simplification package, micro and small primary operators established in low-risk countries can submit a one-time Simplified Declaration rather than repeated Due Diligence Statements (DDS). However, equivalent benefits are not currently available to many third-country farmers and exporters supplying the EU market.

The EU’s Meat Industry Processors Association (UECBV) has echoed these concerns, arguing that importers continue to face extensive due diligence obligations even where exporting countries operate robust traceability and verification systems. UECBV has called for a practical and simplified approach for beef originating from low-risk countries and for formal recognition of credible national traceability systems outside the EU.

Many exporters are expected to rely on existing livestock traceability and property identification systems rather than developing new certification schemes solely for EUDR compliance. While this could minimise duplication, challenges remain around IT integration, data connectivity and linking geolocation information to existing traceability databases. Concerns have also increased following publication of updated EUDR Information System guidance, including limits on producer records, geolocation data volumes and commodity declarations.

A further development emerged during a meeting with an EU Member State Competent Authority in June 2026. The authority confirmed that EUDR compliance is fundamentally an operator responsibility and a prerequisite for placing products on the EU market. Operators must maintain robust due diligence systems covering geolocation data, producer information and risk assessments, while downstream operators must retain information received from suppliers.

The authority indicated a pragmatic enforcement approach, with inspections expected to focus on company due diligence systems rather than border controls. In most cases, corrective actions and opportunities to remedy deficiencies are expected to precede penalties. The authority also highlighted efforts to align implementation with neighbouring Member States to support greater consistency across major EU entry points.

Concerns nevertheless remain regarding inconsistent implementation across EU Member States. Industry groups argue that reliance on guidance documents and IT tools, rather than legislative amendments, may result in differing interpretations by national competent authorities. Calls therefore continue for harmonised inspection procedures, common datasets and clearer audit expectations.

For the UK beef sector, work continues to develop several practical options that could help support compliance and maintain market access. These include seeking EU recognition of UK cattle traceability systems as equivalent supporting evidence, developing an industry-wide EUDR compliance framework, establishing a centralised geolocation and data-sharing platform for exporters, and working closely with Member State competent authorities to promote consistent interpretation of requirements.