Search every question across sub-FAQs

Supplier evidence feeds the Article 10 risk assessment; it does not replace it. Test the evidence's source, reliability, validity, and links to other documents. Also assess country risk, forest and deforestation context, indigenous peoples' rights and reasoned land claims, supply-chain complexity, processing stage, plot traceability, mixing, circumvention, substantiated concerns, and compliance history where relevant.

Certification and third-party verification may provide complementary Article 10 information, but only when the information meets Article 9 requirements. The Commission's July 2026 guidance is non-binding and explains that schemes do not remove the operator's duty to exercise due diligence or responsibility for compliance.

If the evidence is incomplete or inconsistent, record the gap and mitigate before the product is placed on the market or exported. Article 11 examples include requesting additional documents and carrying out independent surveys or audits. Depending on the facts, the operator may also segregate mixed lots, reject unsupported inputs, or hold the shipment until the evidence supports the risk conclusion.

Operators use supplier and origin evidence before submitting or making available the due diligence statement through the Article 33 information system. The statement should not be assembled from a disconnected certificate archive; it should point back to the product, supplier, geolocation or establishment, legal-production, risk assessment, and mitigation records that support the conclusion.

Downstream operators and traders need supply-chain information too. Where the supplier is an operator, keep the supplier details and the due diligence statement reference number or simplified declaration identifier, then pass required references further down the supply chain.

Keep records in a way that a reviewer can reconstruct the supplier chain without relying on inbox searches. Operators keep due diligence statement records for five years, and downstream operators and traders keep Article 5 supply-chain information for at least five years and provide it to competent authorities on request.

A useful retention file contains both the upstream evidence and the downstream handoff: supplier details, product and quantity linkage, origin and geolocation evidence, legal-production documents, risk assessment result, mitigation record if used, due diligence statement reference number or declaration identifier, and downstream recipient information.

Avoid treating a supplier attestation, certificate, or reference number as complete EUDR evidence by itself. The supplier file has to remain connected to the actual product movement and to the Article 9, risk assessment, statement, and retention records behind the release decision.

Article 4a contains one specific geolocation adjustment: a micro or small primary operator may replace Article 9(1)(d) geolocation with the postal address of all plots or the cattle establishment. Do not turn that into a general shortcut for other suppliers. The ordinary Article 2 rule requires six-decimal coordinates and a polygon for each non-cattle plot larger than four hectares.

Member States designate competent authorities to check whether operators and traders comply with the EUDR. For an in-scope product, the practical enforcement file should show that the product is deforestation-free, was produced in accordance with relevant legislation in the country of production, and is covered by the required due diligence statement or simplified declaration.

For operators, enforcement readiness starts before placing on the EU market or exporting: exercise due diligence, submit the required statement through the information system when due diligence shows no or negligible risk, keep the due diligence statement record for five years, and pass the reference number or declaration identifier down the supply chain where required.

The EUDR itself is binding EU law. Commission guidance can explain how the Commission reads and applies the Regulation, but it does not replace, add to, or amend the legal duties. National law controls the procedure and the particular penalty imposed within Article 25's EU framework.

Competent authorities use annual risk-based plans. Selection criteria include the commodity, supply-chain length and complexity, mixing, processing stage, proximity of plots to forests, country risk, prior non-compliance, circumvention risk, information-system data, monitoring data, a substantiated concern, and other relevant information.

The annual minimum check objectives are 1% of covered operators, non-SME downstream operators, and non-SME traders for low-risk production origins; 3% for standard-risk origins; and 9% for high-risk origins. For high-risk origins, checks must also cover 9% of the quantity of each relevant product. Authorities calculate these objectives separately for each relevant commodity from the preceding year's actors and, where applicable, quantities.

Checks normally occur without prior warning. For operators, an authority examines the due diligence system and product-specific evidence. It may also inspect goods, use anatomical, chemical, or DNA analysis to test species or origin, use Earth-observation data to assess deforestation-free status, and conduct field audits where appropriate. Checks on downstream operators and traders focus on the Article 5 information and registration duties.

Answer a competent authority request with the underlying due diligence file. The statement reference alone is insufficient. Connect the product to the commodity, country and place of production, supplier, risk assessment outcome, mitigation where needed, and final no-risk or negligible-risk conclusion.

Downstream operators and traders have a separate evidence burden. They must collect and keep the supply-chain information required by Article 5, including supplier details and relevant due diligence statement reference numbers or declaration identifiers, and provide that information to competent authorities upon request.

Treat the request as a product-specific evidence exercise. Freeze changes to the relevant evidence file, identify the affected due diligence statement or declaration identifier, and assemble the records that prove the product met Article 3 before it was placed, made available, or exported.

If new information suggests a product already placed or made available may be at risk of non-compliance, downstream operators and traders should not wait for a formal penalty process. The official source obligation is to inform competent authorities and downstream recipients; for export cases, the downstream operator informs the competent authority of the Member State that is the country of production.

Article 24 allows competent authorities to require proportionate corrective action, including fixing formal non-compliance, preventing placement or export, immediate withdrawal or recall, donation where appropriate, or disposal. Article 23 also provides for immediate interim measures such as seizure or suspension when potential non-compliance is detected.

Member States set and apply penalties. Article 25 requires effective, proportionate, and dissuasive regimes that include fines, confiscation of products and revenues, temporary exclusion from public procurement and funding, and, for serious or repeated infringements, temporary market prohibitions and loss of simplified due diligence. For a legal person, the maximum fine must be at least 4% of the total annual Union-wide turnover in the financial year preceding the fining decision and may need to exceed the economic benefit gained.