EU Deforestation Regulation What should teams do about non-negligible risk?

Do not release the product on the basis of an unresolved risk note. The EUDR due diligence sequence is information collection under Article 9, risk assessment under Article 10, and risk mitigation under Article 11 where the risk is not negligible.

For an operator, the practical consequence is direct: do not place the relevant product on the market or export it unless the risk assessment reveals no or only negligible risk of non-compliance. If the assessment remains non-negligible, the file needs mitigation first, and the release decision should wait until the evidence supports the required conclusion.

Do not convert this into an unsupported numeric threshold. The grounding sources support a legal conclusion of no/negligible risk versus risk that is not negligible; they do not provide a universal risk score, percentage, or supplier rating that automatically permits release.

Article 10 is the point where collected information is tested against non-compliance risk. A useful record should show the product and commodity in scope, the production origin, the geolocation or permitted replacement information, and documentation supporting deforestation-free and lawful production.

Article 11 is triggered when that assessment does not reach no or negligible risk. Mitigation is not a promise to fix the file later; it is work that must happen before the operator places the product on the market or exports it. After mitigation, the release file should show the updated risk conclusion and why the remaining risk is no or negligible.

For low-risk production, do not skip all risk thinking. The simplified route removes Articles 10 and 11 only where the Article 13 conditions are met, including an assessment of supply-chain complexity and risks of circumvention or mixing, plus documentation showing negligible risk of circumvention or mixing.

For operators, stop before placing the relevant product on the market or exporting it when the risk assessment does not show no or only negligible risk. A due diligence statement should follow a supported due diligence conclusion; it should not be used to override an unresolved assessment.

For non-SME downstream operators and non-SME traders, the stop point is also important when information indicates non-compliance before the regulated activity. If there are substantiated concerns, they should verify due diligence and not place, make available, or export unless verification demonstrates no or negligible risk.

This release gate should apply to each affected product movement. A supplier approval, prior shipment, or generic commodity policy does not by itself prove that the current product row has passed the EUDR risk conclusion.

Keep enough evidence for a reviewer to understand both the facts and the conclusion. The EUDR file should connect Article 9 information to the Article 10 result and, where needed, to Article 11 mitigation completed before release.

At minimum, the evidence should identify the relevant commodity or product, the production origin, geolocation or permitted replacement information, documentation supporting deforestation-free status and production under relevant local law, the assessed supply-chain complexity or mixing risk where relevant, and the final risk conclusion. If a due diligence statement is submitted, keep the statement record and communicate the reference number down the supply chain where required.

For downstream operators and traders, keep the supply-chain information needed under Article 5, including supplier details and due diligence statement reference numbers or declaration identifiers when the supplier is an operator. Keep records long enough to satisfy the EUDR five-year recordkeeping requirements reflected in the grounding sources.

Avoid treating non-negligible risk as a business preference or procurement score. The EUDR release condition is a legal due diligence conclusion: no or only negligible risk of non-compliance before the relevant product is placed on the market or exported.

Avoid filing or relying on a due diligence statement while the underlying evidence still says the risk is unresolved. The statement record should sit behind a traceable due diligence file, not substitute for one.

Avoid adding thresholds, grace periods, penalties, or country-score rules unless they are supported by the current source material. For this FAQ, the grounding supports the risk-assessment and mitigation gate, evidence and recordkeeping duties, downstream substantiated-concern handling, and low-risk simplification conditions; it does not support a universal numeric risk score.