EU Deforestation Regulation Risk Assessment and Mitigation

Start only after the Article 9 file covers the relevant commodity and product, quantity, upstream supplier and downstream business-recipient information, country of production, every production plot or cattle establishment, production period, and evidence supporting deforestation-free and lawful production for the release unit.

Do not replace the legal test with a numeric score. The record should show how the Article 9 information was checked against Article 10 risk criteria and why the release conclusion is no risk, negligible risk, or not yet releasable.

Article 10 does not set a percentage, score band, or automatic pass based on certification or country class. Negligible risk means no cause for concern after the complete assessment of product-specific and general information and any necessary mitigation. Block release whenever that conclusion is not supported.

Use a documented release gate. The business owner cannot place the product on the market or export it until the reviewer can explain the risk conclusion and identify the evidence used.

When the Article 10 assessment leaves risk above negligible, Article 11 requires adequate and proportionate measures before placement or export. The Regulation gives examples: request more information, data, or documents; carry out independent surveys or audits; or use other measures linked to the information requirements. The operator must document how it selected the measures and what result they produced.

Suitable mitigation depends on the risk signal. Extra supplier documents may resolve a missing-record issue, but document reliability, mixing, or land-use concerns may require independent checks, audits, supplier corrective actions, or a decision not to release the product.

Operational example: if a lot lists two production plots but the supplier provides legality evidence for only one, record the missing document against that lot and assign its collection to the sourcing owner. The risk reviewer records whether the additional evidence resolves the concern; the shipment remains on hold until the required risk conclusion is supported.

The evidence record should be useful to the release team, downstream recipients, and competent authorities. It should not be a detached narrative that cannot be reconciled to the supplier file, geolocation evidence, or due diligence statement reference.

Keep the record at the same level as the actual release decision: if release happens by shipment, batch, supplier lot, or product family, the Article 10 and Article 11 evidence should make that unit clear.

Document and review Article 10 assessments at least annually and make them available to competent authorities on request. For each review, retain the evidence version, criteria checked, degree-of-risk reasoning and any revised decision. Review mitigation decisions at least annually as well.

Article 13 removes Articles 10 and 11 only after the operator confirms low-risk production for every relevant commodity and product, assesses supply-chain complexity and circumvention or mixing risk, and documents negligible circumvention or mixing risk. Keep that evidence available to the competent authority on request.

If new information, substantiated concerns, or supply-chain facts point to non-compliance or circumvention, the operator cannot rely on simplified due diligence for that product flow. Complete the Article 10 assessment and any required Article 11 mitigation before placing the product on the market or exporting it.