.png)
Audit-ready EUDR evidence comes from four linked stages: collecting plot and shipment data in a structured way, assessing risk independently, acting on the findings in sourcing, and filing a statement you can defend.
Most companies have the documents. Where they fall short is explaining what those documents mean. With 70 days to 30 December 2026, this guide sets out what to approach first and how to check where you stand.
Where the rules stand
Regulation (EU) 2025/2650 moved the application date to 30 December 2026 for three groups:
- large and medium operators and traders
- all downstream operators and traders, whatever their size
- micro and small operators and natural persons placing products already covered by the EU Timber Regulation.
All other micro and small operators and natural persons follow on 30 June 2027.
What to fix first
With limited time and a small team, order matters more than completeness. These moves are ranked by the cost of getting them wrong.
Most of these moves are analysis and documentation, not new data collection. The dates are suggested targets. The only regulatory deadline is 30 December 2026.
Stage 1
Collect data you can query, not just file
Test yourself: for any shipment, can you list its plots, legality answers and data version in one query? Folders and per-supplier spreadsheets can’t do this. You need plots, suppliers, transactions and shipments stored as linked records.
Fix these gaps now:
- Validate geometry. Reject duplicates, misplaced points and conflicting boundaries.
- Use polygons for plots above four hectares.
- Give every legality answer an owner and a date.
- Re-screen automatically when a supplier changes a boundary.
---
Done when: every shipment links to a fixed set of validated plots.
Stage 2
Assess risk independently, and show your working
Independent means the party screening isn’t the party being screened, and the method is set before the results are in.
Deforestation. Screen against more than one forest and land-use dataset. A single map can’t explain why it disagrees with another.
Legality. Assess land tenure, environmental law, labour rights and free, prior and informed consent against national and subnational law in each production area.
Landscape. A compliant plot in a fast-clearing area still carries mixing risk.
---
Done when: every risk rating has a named cause, such as tree-cover loss, a protected-area overlap or a failed legality check.
Stage 3
Act on findings in sourcing, and record it
Self-assessments and codes of conduct are not mitigation. Authorities expect evidence that non-compliant plots were excluded from sourcing.
Mitigation needs four things:
- A named cause for each flag, so the supplier knows what to fix.
- A dated decision: excluded, remediated, or accepted with a written justification.
- A link to purchasing, so the next lot from a flagged plot is blocked when you buy, not when you file.
- Supplier visibility, so suppliers see a finding before a shipment is rejected.
---
Done when: for any excluded plot, you can show when it was flagged, the cause, the decision, who made it, and the first purchase it blocked.
Stage 4
File, then be ready to defend each shipment
Submit the statement to the EU Information System before the goods are placed on the market, and pass the reference number downstream.
Then prepare for inspection.
The 12-point self-check
Run this against your own setup. Score one point per honest yes. Anything you would have to go and find out is a no.
Collection
Common problems include: duplicate polygons created by projection errors, single points sitting on a farmhouse rather than inside the plot, and boundaries that disagree between two service providers for the same farm. Validate at ingest, reject at ingest.
- Can you list the plots for a random shipment in under 10 minutes?
- Does every plot above four hectares have a polygon rather than a point?
- Was every polygon validated on arrival, with a record of what was rejected and why?
- Does rescreening run automatically when a supplier changes a boundary?
Assessment
- Does every risk rating have a named cause?
- Did you screen against more than one independent forest or land-use dataset?
- Can you name the national and subnational laws you assessed against in each sourcing region?
- Is the party screening independent of the party being screened?
Action and defence
- For an excluded plot, can you show the date, cause, decision, and the purchase it blocked?
- Do your suppliers see their risk findings before a shipment is rejected?
- Can you document input and output at each processing site well enough to rule out mixing?
- Has someone outside the compliance team traced a shipment end to end and passed?
---
Your score
10 or more: use the remaining time on questions 11 and 12.
6 to 9: work through your no’s
5 or fewer: prioritise questions 1, 5 and 9, in that order.
FAQs
We are downstream. Do we still need all of this?
No, you need less. Downstream operators and traders don’t file their own statement. They pass on the first operator’s reference number and keep supplier and customer records, with those reference numbers, for five years. Non-SME downstream operators still need to register in the EU Information System. You still need confidence that the statement you pass on can be defended, because your market access depends on it.
What if a plot is genuinely hard to map?
The regulation makes no exception for difficult terrain. Document the difficulty, the method you used and the evidence you relied on. A documented method is better than a missing polygon.
What happens after 30 December 2026 if we are not ready?
Products without a valid statement can’t be placed on the EU market. You’ll feel the impact before any penalty arrives: goods held at the border, orders unfilled and contracts at risk.
How long does it take to set this up from a standing start?
For a complex chain with several origins, longer than the time left. If you’re starting now, focus on your highest-volume origins. Partial coverage you can document is better than full coverage you can’t show.
Where Agridence and Meridia come in
A data platform alone won’t get you through an inspection. Neither will a risk assessment that never reaches purchasing. That’s why we work together.
- Agridence covers the chain from farm to filing: structured data collection, links between plots and shipments, and the outputs you file.
- Meridia Verify® checks that data against EUDR requirements at plot level. Every flagged plot comes with a named cause the supplier can act on.
Want a second opinion on your self-check? Either team can review where your setup stands and what you can realistically cover before 30 December.
