EUDR Geolocation Checklist

Test location evidence against a real lot

An EUDR geolocation review should establish that the required production places are identified, correctly represented and reliably connected to the product. A map displaying successfully is only one check. The review also needs to test source completeness, the production period, the underlying evidence and any unresolved discrepancy.

Use this checklist on an actual lot rather than a generic supplier profile. Start with the contributing-plot identification process. Record who performed each review and what evidence supports the result. A tick should mean a question was answered, not merely that a supplier promised to supply the missing information later.

Confirm the legal scope and regime

Identify the actual relevant product, applicable Annex I entry and commodity relationship. Determine the business's role before deciding which information duties apply. An ordinary operator collecting Article 9 evidence has a different task from a downstream business meeting Article 5 requirements.

If a postal address is used instead of coordinates, record the basis for the Article 4a primary-operator alternative and its eligibility conditions. A supplier's small size alone is insufficient. For cattle, identify the establishment-chain requirement rather than applying the ordinary non-cattle plot threshold. Keep these regime decisions visible so the reviewer knows what location evidence is legally expected.

Confirm all contributing sources

Can the team explain every production origin associated with the lot? Check whether the source set follows intake and processing records or merely reproduces the supplier's general list of farms. Investigate purchases through agents, changing cooperative membership and material carried over from earlier periods.

A cooperative headquarters, mill or warehouse is not a substitute for the production plots behind the commodity. Mark any unidentified contributing share as unresolved. Do not treat a high mapped percentage as complete evidence for the product when the remaining source relationship is unknown or unsupported.

Check plot identity and geometry choice

Confirm the production unit against Article 2(27), including its relationship to a recognised property and sufficiently homogeneous assessment conditions. Ensure the register distinguishes producers from plots. A large business can operate several plots, while a spreadsheet's preferred row structure does not determine the legal boundary.

For non-cattle plots larger than four hectares, check that a perimeter polygon is provided. Exactly four hectares does not exceed the threshold. Verify the source of the area figure, especially where it is rounded or conflicts with a mapped boundary. Do not accept arbitrary subdivision as a way to avoid the required representation.

Check numerical and technical quality

Coordinates need at least six decimal digits under the legal definition. That precision does not demonstrate physical accuracy. Check source methods and limitations, as well as valid numerical ranges, country plausibility, repeated locations and the correct production feature.

For the Information System exchange, use the current official GeoJSON specification: WGS 84 decimal degrees with longitude first in coordinate arrays. Check polygon closure and unsupported geometries. Retain the source file and any transformed output, and verify that a technical repair has not changed the production area without supporting evidence.

Check the production-period relationship

Keep the production date or time range separate from the date the map was collected or uploaded. Confirm that the geometry version describes the land relevant to the goods and period being assessed. A new boundary may not represent the unit that supplied earlier production.

For cattle, verify the establishments and movement history linked to the animals behind the relevant goods. A final-farm coordinate cannot automatically establish the birthplace or earlier rearing locations. Where records disagree or a stage is missing, investigate before treating the origin chain as complete.

Check the substantive assessment

Can the reviewer explain how location evidence was used to examine deforestation-free status and relevant production law? A valid coordinate or a technically accepted upload does not prove either condition. Historical datasets, alerts and imagery need interpretation against the legal definitions and the actual plot.

Record limitations, conflicting evidence and any mitigation. If the geometry is uncertain near an apparent land-change event, additional boundary or historical evidence may be needed. The operator's decision should reflect the source's reliability and the actual uncertainty, rather than treating the absence of a software error as a negligible-risk conclusion.

Check retention and change handling

Retrieve the source files, assessed geometry version, production relationship, review result and relevant product records. Ensure the information remains available for the applicable retention period and for authority requests. Test retrieval without relying on one person's inbox or continued access to a supplier's live dashboard.

Assign a process for boundary corrections, new sources and later concerns. The team should identify which lots used an earlier location record and consider the consequences of a material error. The geolocation requirements guide explains the framework. Primary references are Articles 2, 4a, 9 and 10 and the current official GeoJSON documentation. Complete the location review before it supports the release decision.

Choose a challenging sample for the final review, such as a lot from several collectors or cattle with multiple rearing establishments. Straightforward examples alone may miss the weaknesses most likely to affect completeness. Record unresolved items, assign an owner and keep the affected product decision on hold where the operator cannot yet satisfy its obligations. Completion should follow the evidence rather than the planned dispatch date.