What Counts as Deforestation Under EUDR?

Forest conversion to agriculture is the legal test

EUDR defines deforestation as conversion of forest to agricultural use, whether human-induced or not. This means an assessment needs both a qualifying earlier forest and a change to agricultural use. Tree removal, fire or a satellite loss alert can be evidence, but none automatically establishes every part of the definition.

For the deforestation-free condition, the relevant issue is whether such conversion occurred after 31 December 2020 on the production land. An agricultural commodity grown on disqualified land does not become acceptable because the present plantation contains tall trees or the land now has an agricultural cadastral label.

Use the EUDR deforestation-free framework and Article 2(3) of the current Regulation together. The July 2026 guidance adds interpretive detail about land use and particular circumstances.

Establish the starting forest condition

Article 2(4) combines land spanning more than 0.5 hectares, trees higher than five metres and canopy cover above ten per cent, or trees able to reach those thresholds in situ. Predominantly agricultural or urban land is excluded. Apply the conditions together, rather than selecting a tree-cover threshold in isolation.

Temporarily unstocked forest can still require forest treatment where the relevant characteristics and expected regeneration support it. A recently harvested area is not automatically vacant agricultural land simply because an image shows few trees on the observation date.

Actual characteristics matter more than a convenient land-register description. A property can contain both agricultural land and a qualifying forest area. The Commission guidance says to assess those areas separately, rather than allowing the larger agricultural share of the property to erase the forest portion.

Establish the later agricultural purpose

Agricultural use includes agricultural plantations, set-aside agricultural areas and livestock rearing, among other agricultural purposes. Forest cleared for pasture can therefore be relevant even without a crop plantation. Tree crops such as oil palm or rubber do not escape the definition merely by retaining tree cover.

Agroforestry needs careful treatment because predominantly agricultural systems are excluded from forest. However, small-scale side production within forest may not change predominant use. Examine how the land is actually managed and the scale and effect of the activity, using the specific guidance rather than a universal rule about all shaded crops.

Where agriculture follows a natural disturbance, investigate the complete sequence. Article 2(3) does not require human-induced forest loss. The question remains whether the relevant land converted from forest to agricultural use, when it did so and how that relates to the sourced production area.

Some tree-cover changes are different legal questions

Conversion to urban infrastructure or non-agricultural industrial use is not agricultural conversion under this definition. That does not amount to a general EUDR approval or a statement that other environmental law permits the activity. Keep the specific definition separate from broader judgments about environmental impact.

The 2026 guidance also discusses narrowly framed primary purposes such as restoration, invasive-species management, forest-fire prevention, animal welfare and renewable energy. Their conditions and actual predominant purpose matter. They are not a blanket exemption for a farm to label ordinary agricultural expansion as environmental management.

Harvesting without agricultural conversion can still raise the separate wood degradation condition. If relevant wood is sourced, assess the Article 2(7) forest-type transitions and Article 2(13)(b) rather than concluding that absence of pasture or crops resolves every forest-related requirement.

Investigate evidence conflicts

A satellite layer might show tree loss while local records describe continuing forest management. Compare image dates, resolution, boundaries, management evidence and subsequent land use. Record whether the apparent conflict results from different definitions, map error, an incomplete observation or a real inconsistency.

Conversely, an official agricultural registration does not prove the land was non-forest throughout the relevant historical period. It may record the present use after conversion. Seek evidence about earlier conditions and the timing of change, not only a current administrative status.

Evidence should relate to the actual production area supplying the goods. A clean result for a village or cooperative district can conceal conversion within one source plot. Preserve geolocation accuracy and plot-to-product links alongside the land-use assessment.

A useful comparison is a forest harvest opening that regenerates as forest and a similar-looking opening that becomes pasture. The initial tree loss may look alike, but the subsequent land use differs. A reviewer should examine the time sequence and management evidence before classifying either event. If wood from the first area is relevant, the separate degradation test still needs assessment. This comparison shows why an alert should start an investigation rather than supply an automatic legal answer.

Write a conversion conclusion that can be checked

A useful decision identifies the source area, starting classification, later use, event dates, evidence and reasoning. Explain uncertainties and any additional work needed before reaching the required risk conclusion. Avoid a yes-or-no field that hides why the observed change did or did not meet the definition.

The article on forest conversion to agricultural use applies the land-use step in more detail. Review conclusions when new imagery, corrected boundaries or credible supplier information changes the historical picture.

The task is to classify the observed facts under the legal definition. Clear distinctions between observation, interpretation and final compliance decision make the assessment more useful to both the business and a competent authority.