Land-Use Rights and EUDR

Filed under EUDR Legality Requirement: Relevant Laws in the Country of Production

Plot record: legal status and review details

Jurisdiction: European Union
Status: Current consolidated Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 as at 18 September 2026, read with Commission guidance C/2026/3896, section 6. Main obligations are not yet generally applicable on the verification date.
Application: Generally 30 December 2026; qualifying Article 38(3) operators established by 31 December 2024 have until 30 June 2027, except covered EUTR products; specified newly scoped products apply from 30 December 2027. Check the actor and product rules.
Relevant provisions: Articles 2(40), 3(b), 9(1)(h), 10 and 11

Review this page when:

Amendments to Article 2(40) or the legality condition
New Commission legality guidance or relevant judicial interpretation
Changes to applicable production-country legislation
Material changes in production-area rights, activities or evidence

Establish the right to produce on the actual land

Land-use rights are expressly included in Article 2(40)(a). The EUDR question is whether the commodity was produced under applicable arrangements that entitled the producer to use the area for that purpose. Article 9(1)(h) specifically includes information about arrangements conferring the right to use the relevant area. A land title may be important evidence, but the Regulation does not impose universal private ownership as the only lawful basis for production.

Depending on applicable law, the relevant arrangement might involve ownership, a lease, a concession, recognised customary tenure or another legally effective permission. The operator needs to understand the legal effect of the arrangement rather than rank documents solely by how formal they appear. Registered ownership and permission to conduct a particular activity can also be different questions.

Within the EUDR legality assessment, connect the right to the commodity, production period and geolocated area. An exporter holding a licence in its own name does not necessarily establish the rights of the farmers whose material it purchases.

Read the limits of the arrangement

A document can be authentic yet insufficient for the proposed conclusion. Check the holder, parcel description, geographic extent, dates, permitted use, conditions and any restrictions on transfer or subletting. A grazing permission may not authorise plantation establishment. A lease of one parcel does not cover an adjacent expansion simply because the same household manages both areas.

The applicable legal system determines which conditions matter and what happens when they are breached. Avoid inventing a universal requirement to register every lease or obtain the same government certificate. If a jurisdiction recognises an arrangement without that formality, record the legal basis and the credible information supporting its existence. If registration is required, explain how the requirement has been met.

Also consider whether the named holder authorised the actual producer to operate. An enterprise may cultivate through tenants, contractors or community arrangements. Trace the legal chain where necessary and distinguish evidence of occupation from evidence of lawful use. Utility bills and photographs can corroborate activity, but ordinarily require additional context before they establish legal entitlement.

Resolve maps and competing rights carefully

Compare the legal description with the production geolocation. Administrative maps, cadastral boundaries and field measurements may use different coordinate systems or contain errors. A mismatch is a question to investigate, rather than immediate proof of illegal occupation or something to hide through redrawing. Document the discrepancy, its explanation and the evidence supporting the final area used in the assessment.

Third parties may hold recognised rights within or across a registered parcel. Community access, usufruct or another legally recognised interest can constrain how the owner uses the land. A title search may therefore be necessary but insufficient. Consider relevant claims, agreements and decisions affecting production, including claims by indigenous peoples based on objective and verifiable information.

The operator is not a land court. It should obtain appropriate local expertise when competing claims affect the legality conclusion and assess whether unresolved risk prevents release. A supplier's promise to settle a dispute later does not establish present compliance. The response should address the disputed production area and affected goods, rather than treating every source from the country as identical.

An illustrative leased rubber farm

A rubber supplier gives an operator a ten-year lease and a plantation map. The lease names a local company, while the production records name a related individual. The mapped plantation also extends beyond the parcel described in the lease. The review must establish the relationship between the producer and the leaseholder and identify the legal basis for the additional land.

The company explains that it appointed the individual to manage cultivation and produces a valid management arrangement. That may resolve the identity question if applicable law supports the arrangement. It does not resolve the boundary issue. Separate evidence is needed for the extension, or reliable records must show that the goods came entirely from an independently compliant production source.

If the extension was established on forest after 31 December 2020, obtaining a valid lease for it would still leave the separate deforestation condition unresolved. Likewise, a pre-existing plantation does not become lawful merely because no recent forest loss is visible. These distinctions help the operator ask the right follow-up questions instead of treating one document as a complete compliance certificate.

Maintain an evidence trail that survives change

Retain the arrangement reviewed, the supporting legal explanation and the link to the parcel and production dates. Where evidence is translated, preserve the original and make clear which provisions the translation covers. Record verification with an issuing authority or other reliable source when that verification matters to the conclusion. Avoid recording unnecessary personal details in broadly accessible supplier systems.

Review expiry, cancellation, transfer, succession and changes in permitted use. A renewal after production may not automatically establish that the earlier production period was lawful; the legal effect depends on the applicable rules. A new supplier code should not obscure a change in the actual producer or rights holder.

Land rights also interact with environmental protection laws. A lawful right to occupy a parcel can coexist with restrictions on clearing, drainage or cultivation. State separately what the tenure evidence proves and which activity restrictions have been checked. The resulting file should explain who could produce what, where and when, with unresolved issues clearly addressed before the relevant market decision.

Primary sources on the record

Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, Articles 2(40), 3(b), 9(1)(h), 10 and 11. 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.