Filed under EUDR Due Diligence Explained: Information, Risk and Compliance
Plot record: legal status and review details
- Jurisdiction
- European Union
- Status
- Current consolidated Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, including the 2025 amendment and September 2026 consolidation. Main obligations are not yet generally applicable on the verification date.
- Application
- Generally 30 December 2026; 30 June 2027 for eligible micro and small operators, subject to the timber exception; some newly added products apply from 30 December 2027. Check the product and actor-specific rules.
- Relevant provisions
- Articles 2(26), 3, 4, 10, 11 and 13
Review this page when:
- Amendments to Articles 3 to 13
- New Commission due diligence guidance or FAQs
- Changes to country benchmarking
- Application dates and product-scope changes
The threshold for a supported release decision
No or negligible risk is the EUDR threshold an ordinary operator must reach before placing a relevant product on the EU market or exporting it. It concerns the risk that the product does not comply with the Regulation. It is not a purchasing team's tolerance for delay, a percentage of questionable material the buyer is willing to accept, or a substitute for checking the evidence.
Article 2 defines negligible risk by reference to a full assessment of product-specific and general information and, where necessary, appropriate mitigation, showing no cause for concern about compliance. Article 10 requires operators to verify and analyse the Article 9 information and other relevant documents. The conclusion must therefore result from an assessment, rather than from assigning every approved supplier a reassuring default status.
In the due diligence process, this threshold links investigation to release. The operator must be able to explain why the actual goods meet the substantive conditions and why any remaining concern is negligible. A statement reference number does not supply that reasoning, and a contractual promise that the supplier will reimburse losses does not reduce the underlying product's deforestation or legality risk.
What the conclusion must cover
Article 3 separates deforestation-free status, lawful production, and coverage by the required statement or simplified declaration. Risk analysis cannot collapse the first two into a single general sustainability impression. A production plot might have a clear historical land-cover record but be subject to a credible third-party ownership claim. Conversely, a fully licensed agricultural conversion may still fail the deforestation-free condition.
Article 10 lists criteria including country risk, forest presence and deforestation prevalence, indigenous peoples and relevant claims, information reliability, corruption and falsification concerns, chain complexity and mixing. The assessment should connect relevant criteria to the facts. Not every criterion requires identical evidence in every case, but ignoring an applicable factor because the supplier has a low numerical score leaves the conclusion unsupported.
Country classification is one input. Low-risk status can permit Article 13 simplified due diligence under its conditions, but does not establish that an unidentified product complies. The operator must ascertain that all relevant production is low risk and assess chain complexity and circumvention or mixing. Adverse information can require full Article 10 and 11 assessment and mitigation even in that setting.
Distinguish uncertainty from a resolved concern
An honest assessment recognises limitations in individual records. Satellite data may have cloud cover or coarse resolution. A land record may identify an old owner, and a production ledger may use local plot names rather than stable identifiers. The appropriate response depends on whether complementary evidence resolves the relevant uncertainty. Listing limitations without evaluating their consequences does not reach the threshold.
Suppose two records give different plot coordinates for the same farm. The supplier explains that an employee entered a warehouse location. A corrected coordinate and verifiable parcel information may resolve the discrepancy if the goods are connected to the corrected plot and the remaining checks support compliance. Simply deleting the original warning without a reason would erase the evidence of how the problem was addressed.
Contrast that with a supplier unable to identify which of several farms supplied part of a mixed lot. Clean evidence for the known farms cannot establish the status of the unknown contribution. The operator should not average the two situations into a low overall risk. The unresolved source may require further investigation, reliable segregation or rejection of the affected goods.
Evaluate mitigation by the question it answers
Article 11 allows additional information, independent surveys or audits and other measures addressing information requirements. Match the measure to the concern. A review of chain-of-custody records may resolve a processing link, while a disputed land right may require different legal and factual investigation. An audit's existence is not a conclusion that every concern has been resolved.
Document both the original issue and the result of the measure. Record what the reviewer learned, which goods and origins were covered, any limitations, and why the revised evidence supports no or negligible risk. If the audit excludes an intermediary responsible for unrecorded purchases, its positive findings at a processing plant may leave the central sourcing problem untouched.
Certification and third-party schemes can provide complementary information where their evidence meets the Regulation's requirements. They are not universal safe harbours. Check the scheme's scope, audit period, coverage of production locations, relevant legal requirements and chain model. An assurance based on mass balance or selected sample farms needs careful examination against the operator's obligation for the actual relevant products.
Record a decision another reviewer can understand
A useful conclusion describes the product, evidence set, applicable concerns, checks and mitigation, followed by a reasoned release or hold decision. It should be understandable without repeating the entire file. For example, state how a quantity discrepancy was reconciled and what prevents unknown material from entering the lot, instead of writing only risk acceptable in a final spreadsheet cell.
Risk assessments must be documented and reviewed at least annually under Article 10(4), with separate review duties for mitigation and the system. Relevant new information requires attention when received. A conclusion is not an unlimited warranty covering future suppliers, later harvests or changed source plots. Define the conditions on which it depends and the changes that require reassessment.
If the supported threshold cannot be reached, the operator must stop placement or export under the applicable prohibition. Verify decisions against Articles 2, 4, 10 and 11. The legal test rewards a defensible connection between facts and compliance, rather than the appearance of certainty in a software dashboard.
Primary sources on the record
Articles 2(26), 3, 4, 10, 11 and 13. 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.