How to Record Multiple Production Plots

Keep each plot identifiable within the product record

When a relevant product contains commodity from multiple production plots, ordinary EUDR information requirements include all contributing plots and the production date or time range. A practical recording system preserves each plot's identity and links the set of contributing plots to the relevant lot or product. Combining everything into one approximate location loses information the legal assessment needs.

The regulation does not prescribe a universal spreadsheet design. A small business can use linked tables, while a larger operation may use a database. The important requirement is that the record remains complete, accurate and retrievable, with the relationship between goods and production places understandable to another reviewer.

Give plots and producers separate identifiers

Use a stable identifier for each producer and a separate stable identifier for each production plot. A producer may operate several plots, and a plot's commercial management can change over time. If the producer name is the only key, spelling variations and reorganisations can fragment the history or merge different places incorrectly.

For example, keep producer C014 and plots C014-A and C014-B as distinct records, with documented identifiers rather than relying on the example naming scheme itself. A later transfer of plot B should preserve its historical identity. Names and supplier codes can be useful attributes, but they should not silently determine which geometry is associated with earlier deliveries.

Record the location and its source

For every plot, retain the country of production, geometry, area basis, collection source, collection date and evidence supporting identification. Record whether the geometry is a point or polygon and why that representation is appropriate. Non-cattle plots larger than four hectares require polygons; exactly four hectares does not exceed the threshold.

Include a field for uncertainty or unresolved issues. A missing boundary confirmation should remain visible rather than being replaced by a generic “complete” status when a coordinate appears. Separating acquisition quality from legal assessment status helps the team distinguish a technically readable file from a location ready to support due diligence.

Add a lot-to-plot relationship table

A separate relationship table can connect each receipt, processing lot or finished batch to its contributing plot identifiers and production period. This permits many plots to feed one lot and one plot to contribute to several lots. It avoids duplicating the entire location file every time a shipment is prepared.

The multiple-origin handling guide explains the physical supply-chain controls needed alongside this data structure. A database relationship is only as reliable as the intake and production evidence supporting it. The system should show where the association came from, such as farmer delivery records and consolidation logs.

Preserve production periods separately from file dates

The date a coordinate was collected is not necessarily the date the commodity was produced. Article 9 requires the production date or time range. A survey conducted in September can describe a plot supplying a crop harvested months earlier, but the file needs evidence connecting the geometry and production period.

Store collection date, geometry validity period and commodity production period as separate concepts. This becomes important when a plot expands or its boundary is corrected. Reusing the newest geometry for every historical delivery can make an older product appear to originate from land that did not belong to the production unit at that time.

Package geometries without merging their identities

Technical formats can package multiple locations into a single file, but that should not erase the plot register. The current official GeoJSON description provides variants for producer-level and multiple-producer workflows. Use the specification applicable to the intended import and verify how properties and producer grouping are handled.

An export may not retain every custom attribute from an internal GIS system. The Commission documentation states that unrecognised properties can be ignored. Keep the original identifiers and a submission mapping in the internal evidence record instead of assuming that uploading a customised field guarantees its preservation in the regulatory system.

Reconcile additions, removals and duplicates

Before approving a lot, compare the reported contributing set with intake and production records. Investigate duplicated geometry associated with different producers, unexpected new plots, missing sources and stale records. A duplicate may be legitimate shared management or a data error; the explanation matters more than an automatic deletion rule.

Do not remove a plot from a historical lot merely because the supplier no longer purchases from it today. Keep the relevant past relationship while preventing an inactive source from being mistakenly used for new deliveries. Access and update controls should support that distinction between historical completeness and current supplier eligibility.

Test retrieval through a worked example

Select one shipment and retrieve every contributing plot, the production periods, source files, assessment evidence and geometry versions. Then select one plot and identify the lots associated with it. These two directions test whether the register can answer both an authority's product question and an internal concern about a production location.

The geolocation requirements pillar explains the legal context. Primary references are Article 9(1)(d) and the Commission's current GeoJSON documentation. Keep the record design proportionate, but ensure it preserves all relevant production places and the evidence linking them to the actual product.

Include at least one difficult example in the trial: a split lot, a corrected plot or a supplier whose deliveries cross two production periods. A register that works only for one farmer and one shipment may conceal relationship problems. Document the failed retrieval and repair the structure before scaling it across the purchasing network.