GIS Data and EUDR Compliance

GIS supports assessment rather than deciding compliance alone

A geographic information system can help organise EUDR production locations, inspect geometry and compare the land with relevant evidence. It does not automatically establish deforestation-free status, legal land rights or the connection between a plot and a shipment. Those conclusions require the applicable definitions, reliable source material and the wider supply-chain assessment.

Use GIS as part of an evidence workflow. Keep the source geometry, any transformed version, the comparison layers, the interpretation and the resulting decision distinguishable. A coloured risk map can summarise work, but it should not conceal which evidence was used, what the analysis actually tested or where uncertainties remain.

Begin with a reliable production geometry

The ordinary location duty requires all contributing plots and the production period. Non-cattle plots above four hectares need polygons, while smaller plots can use an appropriate point under the definition. The GIS team should receive a plot register and supporting identification evidence, not simply a file of unexplained shapes.

Check that each geometry has a stable plot identifier, declared production country and source. A perfect polygon for the wrong farm is still wrong evidence. Where a supplier provides only a collection-centre coordinate, a GIS specialist cannot create the missing production origins by expanding that point into a larger arbitrary buffer.

Confirm the coordinate reference system

The current Commission GeoJSON description uses WGS 84 decimal degrees with longitude before latitude in coordinate arrays. A projected national dataset may use metres and a different reference system. Perform a documented transformation into the required system instead of relabelling columns or assigning a different reference label without transforming the coordinates.

Keep the original file and transformation settings. A systematic shift can occur when the source system is misunderstood, while swapped axes can place locations far from the declared country. The coordinate validation guide explains why automated numeric checks should be combined with map and source inspection.

Validate geometry before spatial analysis

Check polygon closure, self-intersections, repeated vertices, unexpectedly narrow shapes and implausible areas. A geometry error can distort an intersection with forest data or make the system calculate the wrong production extent. Flag errors before drawing substantive conclusions from the analysis.

A repair needs review. Automatically closing a ring may be straightforward when the intended boundary is clear, while correcting a self-crossing shape can require choosing between different interpretations. Keep the supplier's original geometry and a record of the correction. The person making the technical repair should not silently decide a disputed production boundary.

Understand what each comparison layer represents

A land-cover map, tree-cover-loss layer and forest classification can describe different things. Their dates, resolution, definitions and coverage matter. A dataset labelled “forest” does not automatically apply the EUDR forest definition, and a tree-cover-loss alert does not automatically establish conversion to agricultural use.

For example, a change layer may show an event near a plantation boundary. The reviewer needs to examine whether it concerns the contributing plot, the relevant time period and the land-use change addressed by the regulation. Record how the dataset was interpreted and what additional evidence resolved ambiguity, instead of treating every pixel colour as a final legal finding.

Keep spatial and temporal evidence aligned

Historical land assessment depends on time as well as place. The production geometry and land evidence should address the relevant period, including the 31 December 2020 cut-off. A new boundary can include land outside an older production unit, so applying today's geometry to every historical shipment can change what the analysis appears to show.

Retain acquisition dates, image dates, dataset versions and the plot geometry version. If cloud cover or other limitations prevent a clear observation, say so and consider additional evidence. The absence of a visible alert in a limited dataset is not necessarily proof that the legal condition has been met.

Link the analysis to the actual product

A GIS result is useful only if the assessed plots relate to the commodity in the goods. Preserve the connection between plot identifiers, producer records, production periods and lots. Otherwise the team may produce excellent maps for locations that did not supply the shipment being released.

The traceability team should be able to explain aggregation and processing, while the GIS team explains location and land evidence. Neither function can assume the other has answered every question. A shared identifier and a clear handover make it possible to review the combined evidence without merging the distinct responsibilities into an unexplained risk score.

Export a compatible file and preserve the work

Check the current technical specification before regulatory export. A GIS package can support features that the Information System does not accept, including particular polygon structures. Test the exported result and keep a record of any simplification or decomposition needed for compatibility, ensuring the production area remains faithfully represented.

The geolocation pillar explains the legal context. Primary sources are Articles 2, 9 and 10 and the official GeoJSON documentation. Preserve analysis outputs and reasoning as well as the final upload file so another reviewer can understand the decision later.

Have the analyst document any parameters that materially affect the result, such as the geometry version, dataset date and treatment of uncertain observations. Another reviewer should be able to distinguish a confirmed finding from a screening alert. Reproducibility supports confidence in the work without implying that a repeatable computer process alone supplies the necessary legal interpretation.