circular economy,  compliance e AEO

EUDR compliance readiness: a short analysis of the updated version of “Frequently Asked Questions Implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation”. The land information

Maggio 5, 2026 /

The Frequently Asked Questions Implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation”about the land information provides with these questions/answers:

Should polygons be provided by means of circumference?

There is neither an obligation nor a possibility to provide the plot of land information by means of circumference. For plots of land of more than four hectares (for the production of the relevant commodities other than cattle), geolocation has to be provided using polygons (not a unique central point with a circumference) with sufficient latitude and longitude points to describe the perimeter of each plot of land.

How should the place of production of mixed goods be declared?

The operator needs to declare the place of production of all goods effectively shipped to the EU. For example, if compliant goods from multiple places of production are mixed into the same silo, stack, pile, tank, etc., and then some of those goods are placed on the EU market:

  • The place of production declared should include the place of production of all goods that entered the silo since it was last empty (and could therefore potentially be included in the shipment)
  • If the silos are not regularly emptied, the operator would need to declare the place of production of all goods that entered the silo during a period of time that ensures that commodities of unknown place of production are not mixed up in the process. For instance, when downloading part of the goods stored in the silo, this could be safely done by declaring the geolocation of all previous goods that entered the silo up to a minimum of 200% of the silo capacity, provided that the silo works in first-in first-out system or an equivalent system that ensures the chronological exhaustion of raw materials in the order of their entry. This approach applies to relevant commodities or products stored in stacks, tanks, etc. and all continuous processing.
  • Other approaches are possible for first-in first-out as well as for other storage systems as long as it is ensured that commodities from an unknown place of production or which are incompliant with EUDR are not mixed up in the process.
  • Declaring the place of production of x amount of goods that entered the silo, where x is the amount placed on the EU is not allowed under the Regulation, as it would violate the prohibition under the Regulation of placing products of unknown origin on the Union market.

Under which circumstances can operators declare more plots of land in a due diligence statement than those actually concerned by the production of the specific commodity placed on the market?  What are the implications of a “declaration in excess”?

The thrust of the Regulation requires a correspondence between the commodities/products placed on the market and the plots of land where they are effectively produced (hence, the Regulation is built on the principle of strict traceability, whereby operators need to collect the precise geolocation coordinates corresponding to the plots of land of production). However, an operator can, in specific circumstances, provide geolocation coordinates for a limited number of plots of land higher than those where the commodities were produced:

Operators may declare “in excess” only in situations where a bulk commodity is fully traced to the plot of land and is not being subject to mixing with commodity of unknown origin or non-compliant commodities. When such bulk commodity is mixed up along the logistical or production process, for instance in silos for storage, onboard ships for transportation, or in mills during the production process, the operator can resort to a declaration in excess if and when only a part of the whole is placed on the market. Operators are required to obtain traceability data that is as granular as possible.

Declaration in excess can also be applied in case of crop rotation on a set of agricultural land plots on a farm, where e.g. soy is produced each year in a different part of the farm’s total arable land area.

If the operator declares ‘in excess’ in the due diligence statement, the operator assumes full responsibility for compliance of all plots of land for which geolocation is provided, regardless of whether such plots of land are concerned by the production of commodities/products eventually placed on the market. If one plot of land ‘geolocalised’ in the due diligence statement is not compliant, the entire set of plots of land ‘geolocalised’ is non-compliant. In these cases the operator declaring plots of land in excess also has to fully carry out due diligence in compliance with the obligations under the EUDR, for all plots of land declared (including those in excess) and has to provide evidence that 1) the risk of non-compliance (regarding the deforestation-free and the legality requirement) has been assessed in accordance with Art. 10(2) EUDR for all plots of land, 2) that, in such assessment, the operator has taken particular account of criteria (i) and (j), of Art. 10 EUDR, and 3) that such risk is negligible for all plots of land. In more detail, the operator has to consider the existence of a risk if connecting relevant products to the plots of land where the relevant commodities were produced is difficult according to Art. 10(2)(i) EUDR, and also if the risk of circumvention of the Regulation or of mixing with relevant products of unknown origin is non-negligible according to Art. 10(2)(j) EUDR. The operator has to mitigate these risks to negligible level before placing or making available such products on the market or exporting them.

With no prejudice to the above-mentioned case scenarios, traceability practices that aim to declare an excessive amount of plots of land (for instance, on a regional or country-wide basis) are generally not in line with the rules of this regulation. Such practices would not allow operators to comply with their core due diligence obligations, in particular mitigating risk of circumvention (i.e., it is not possible to conduct due diligence as per Art. 8 EUDR on an entire country). It would also hinder the work of EU Member States Competent Authorities, making it difficult (or even impossible) to comply with their obligations to carry out checks as per Art. 16 EUDR.

 

How will geolocation allow claims to be checked in practice? How will geolocation allow for checking the validity of a no-deforestation claim in practice? Is it aligning satellite navigation positioning and deforestation maps?  Will there be baseline maps that forest areas or areas that have undergone deforestation and forest degradation? How will it work if geolocation of farms, plantations or concessions are not available?

It is the responsibility of the operator to collect the geolocation coordinates of the plots of land where the commodities were produced. If the operator cannot collect the geolocation of all plots of land contributing to a relevant product, then they should not place that product on the EU market or export it, in accordance with Art. 3 EUDR. Operators (and non-SME downstream operators and traders) and enforcing authorities may cross-check the geolocation coordinates against satellite images or forest cover maps to assess if the products meet the deforestation-free requirement of the Regulation.

How will the Competent Authorities of the EU Member States check the validity of a no-deforestation claim?

The EU Member States’ Competent Authorities carry out checks in accordance with Art. 16 EUDR to establish that the relevant commodities and products that have been or are intended to be placed on or made available on the EU market or exported, come from deforestation-free plots of land and were produced legally. This includes conducting checks on the validity of the due diligence statements, and the overall compliance of the operators, downstream operators and traders with the provisions of the Regulation.