EUDR Deforestation-Free Requirement and the 31 December 2020 Cut-Off

Plot record: legal status and review details

Jurisdiction: European Union
Status: In force; principal obligations apply on the dates specified by Article 38 and relevant Annex I entries.
Application: 30 December 2026 generally; 30 June 2027 for qualifying operators under Article 38(3); specified new products from 30 December 2027.
Relevant provisions: Articles 2(3) to 2(13), 3(a), 9(1)(d), 9(1)(g) and 10

Review this page when:

Amendment of the EUDR or relevant Annex I entries
New Commission guidance or FAQs
Changes to Information System data specifications
New material information about the production land or supply chain

The direct answer

The EUDR deforestation-free condition concerns the land where the relevant commodity was produced, not the date a business obtained a certificate or signed a supplier policy. Article 2(13) requires production on land that has not been subject to deforestation after 31 December 2020. Relevant wood products have an additional condition: the wood must have been harvested without inducing forest degradation after that date.

These are defined legal tests. A current green landscape does not prove its history, and a legal clearing permit does not remove the EUDR cut-off. Product scope, production location, relevant dates and land classification must be considered together. The condition sits alongside the separate legality and statement or simplified-declaration conditions in Article 3.

The definition of deforestation-free under EUDR explains the two limbs in detail. This broader guide shows how they connect to evidence collection and a product-specific review.

Separate the cut-off from application dates

The cut-off is 31 December 2020. The main obligations generally start applying on 30 December 2026, with the qualifications in Article 38 and product-specific provisions. These dates serve different purposes. Delaying the application of obligations does not move the historical boundary used to assess forest conversion.

For example, a relevant crop grown in 2027 on land converted from forest to agriculture in 2022 cannot pass the deforestation-free condition merely because the conversion happened before the regulation's general application date. Whether a particular product falls within a transitional provision must be checked separately; it is not a reason to substitute 2026 for 2020 in the definition.

The cut-off date explanation distinguishes this historical test from publication, entry into force and later market obligations. Keep those dates in separate fields when planning implementation or reviewing older stock.

Apply the forest and agricultural-use definitions

Article 2(3) treats deforestation as conversion of forest to agricultural use, whether human-induced or not. Article 2(4) defines forest using land area, tree height and canopy thresholds while excluding predominantly agricultural or urban land use. The definition covers land spanning more than 0.5 hectares with trees higher than five metres and canopy cover above ten percent, or trees able to reach those thresholds in place, subject to the land-use qualification.

Tree-cover loss and legal deforestation are therefore not interchangeable labels. A satellite alert may identify a canopy change that requires investigation without establishing conversion to agricultural use. Conversely, retaining some trees in an agricultural system does not automatically mean that the land remains forest for this purpose.

Determine both the earlier forest status and the later use. Record the reasoning where evidence is ambiguous, rather than using a colour on a land-cover map as the entire conclusion. The forest-definition guide explains why land use and the physical thresholds must be read together.

Examine plantations and agroforestry carefully

Article 2(6) treats agricultural plantations as agricultural use and excludes them from the definition of forest. The definition includes plantations of relevant commodities other than wood and agricultural production systems such as oil palm plantations and agroforestry where crops grow under tree cover. The existence of trees therefore cannot settle the classification.

The Commission's 2026 guidance discusses predominant land use and distinguishes agricultural systems from limited ancillary agricultural activities that do not change a forest's predominant use. These are fact-dependent questions. A farm's marketing description, a broad national land label or the word agroforestry on a certificate should not substitute for examining the actual situation.

For an illustrative assessment, compare historical images, crop establishment records and the description of production activities. If forest was converted after the cut-off into an agricultural plantation, the later plantation's dense tree cover does not restore the missing historical condition. If the evidence instead concerns limited production within forest without a change of predominant use, examine the guidance and the particular facts rather than assuming the same outcome.

Apply the additional wood degradation test

Forest degradation has a specific definition in Article 2(7). It covers structural changes involving conversion of primary or naturally regenerating forest into plantation forest or other wooded land, and conversion of primary forest into planted forest. The related definitions of primary forest, naturally regenerating forest, planted forest and plantation forest matter to that analysis.

Wood harvested from land that remains broadly labelled forest can therefore require more investigation. The question is not limited to whether agriculture replaced the forest. A change in forest structure falling within the defined degradation categories may affect the deforestation-free condition for the wood.

Read the wood-product degradation requirements before deciding which forest records to obtain. Distinguish a defined conversion from temporary canopy disturbance, and preserve the evidence supporting the classification. Other environmental impacts may remain relevant to production legality even where they do not fit this particular degradation definition.

Build an attributable historical evidence file

Article 9 requires adequately conclusive and verifiable information supporting deforestation-free status. Useful evidence may include appropriately dated imagery, production records, land-use histories, forest management documents and field observations. Their relevance depends on the location, period, resolution and reliability of the material. No single commercial map layer or private certification label establishes compliance for every situation.

Connect each evidence item to the actual contributing plot and production period. Record the source, acquisition date, spatial coverage, interpretation and limitations. Images from different seasons may look different for reasons unrelated to conversion. Cloud cover, sparse observations, classification errors and uncertain plot boundaries can also leave gaps that require further evidence.

Suppose two historical images show a clear canopy change but the available records disagree about whether agriculture followed. A defensible file preserves that uncertainty, identifies what additional material is needed and explains the final assessment. Selecting only the image that supports a preferred answer would not resolve the disagreement.

Keep legality and deforestation findings separate

A producer may possess a valid permit for land clearance under national law and still fail the EUDR deforestation-free condition if the relevant forest conversion occurred after the cut-off. Conversely, evidence that land was already agricultural before the cut-off does not prove that its subsequent production complied with relevant local law.

Article 3 requires the applicable conditions together. Keep separate conclusions for land history, production legality and required regulatory coverage, then explain how they support the product decision. An invoice, an export permit or a statement reference cannot stand in for every part of this work.

The operator's risk assessment must evaluate the evidence rather than simply collect it. Where a material inconsistency remains, investigate it through the appropriate risk-assessment and mitigation process. A missing historical period or unidentified source is not automatically harmless because the remainder of a shipment has strong records.

Turn the review into a release decision

List all contributing plots and identify the evidence supporting the applicable cut-off and wood-degradation findings. Check that the product record uses the current plot version and that the reviewed origins match the lot actually being placed on the market or exported. When products have multiple origins, complete evidence for one source cannot compensate for an unexplained second source.

Document why the information supports no or only negligible risk where the ordinary assessment framework applies. Keep unresolved concerns visible and assign responsibility for investigating them. New reliable information can require action even after a previous assessment, so a review process needs a route for supplier corrections and substantiated concerns.

Use the deforestation-free evidence checklist to organise the final review. It is a practical aid, not an official certificate. Preserve the evidence and reasoning so that a later reviewer or competent authority can follow the connection between the product, its production land and the relevant historical condition.

Primary sources on the record

Articles 2(3) to 2(13), 3(a), 9(1)(d), 9(1)(g) and 10. This entry was checked against the consolidated text dated 18 September 2026. Consolidated texts are documentation tools; the authentic acts are those published in the Official Journal.

Check the current sources and the guidance of the relevant competent authority for your situation. This page is not legal advice or a compliance determination.