EUDR Geolocation: How lawcode’s EUDR Solution Automatically Verifies Geodata

Summary for Decision-Makers

In practice, few aspects of the EUDR create as much work for companies as geolocation. Precise, verifiable geodata must be available for every single cultivated area. Once the number of suppliers reaches a certain threshold, it becomes nearly impossible to handle this accurately by hand. The error rate rises, and so does the workload. Lawcode’s EUDR software handles exactly this part: It imports the geodata, checks the format, cross-references the areas with deforestation data, and displays the results on a map. In this way, it provides the “deforestation-free supply chain” verification that companies must submit to regulatory authorities—in a transparent and verifiable manner. Companies that fail to establish a clear system early on run the risk of either having gaps in their compliance or getting bogged down in manual work.

A brief note on the legal background: For each cultivated area, you need either a geopoint (up to 4 hectares) or a complete polygon (for larger areas). Additionally, you must provide evidence that no deforestation has taken place there since December 31, 2020. We’ve summarized all further details on this topic—such as the scope of application, deadlines, and affected product groups—in our article on the basics of the EUDR.

Specific Obligations & Practical Steps

Automatic Import & Format Check

In practice, geodata is rarely available in a uniform format: Some suppliers provide GPS coordinates as an Excel list, others as a CSV export from a field management system, and still others as a GeoJSON or Shapefile from a GIS tool. lawcode’s EUDR solution accepts all of these formats directly and automatically checks them during import:

This step lays the foundation for the subsequent EUDR Plot verification, during which each individual cultivation area is checked against the legal requirements. Data sets that fail this check are not automatically accepted but are immediately returned to the responsible team with an error message. This ensures that gaps do not remain undetected until the due diligence statement is submitted.

Cross-checking with satellite and deforestation databases

In the second step, the system automatically cross-checks the verified geodata against current satellite data on deforestation as well as against deforestation databases. It checks whether the forest area has changed since December 31, 2020—both for individual geopoints and for the entire EUDR polygon in the case of larger areas. Each area is then assigned a clear result: normal, suspicious, or cannot be clearly determined.

Map Visualization & Risk Flagging

Instead of a dry list of results, lawcode’s EUDR solution displays the audited areas directly on a map. Areas of concern are highlighted in color, allowing compliance teams to focus specifically on the few critical cases rather than clicking through hundreds of unremarkable data entries. In addition, the view can be filtered by supplier, product category, or audit status. This is particularly useful when a single supplier is responsible for multiple areas of concern and you want to follow up with specific questions.

Case Study: A medium-sized coffee importer sources raw coffee from 50 growing areas belonging to various suppliers, partly as an Excel list and partly as a GPS export. Previously, all coordinates had to be entered manually into a mapping service and compared individually with public deforestation data. This took three to four workdays per review cycle, and with so much manual data entry, errors kept creeping in. With lawcode’s EUDR solution, the process works differently today: All 50 data sets are imported in just a few minutes, automatically checked for formatting errors, and cross-referenced with the deforestation database. Three areas stand out as suspicious and are displayed as priorities on the map view. This allows the compliance team to address these three cases immediately, while the rest of the process runs automatically.

Special Cases, Obstacles, and Exceptions

Smaller suppliers without digital geographic data: Not every upstream supplier has digitized coordinates. In this case, a structured data collection process (e.g., using an app on-site) is recommended, one that delivers the data directly in a compatible format.

Polygon vs. Point Specification for Mixed Plots: If a supplier manages several smaller plots that together total more than 4 hectares, it must be determined whether the individual plots remain below the threshold when considered separately or are considered a contiguous area. This is a common borderline case that should be carefully documented in practice.

Timeliness of Deforestation Data: Satellite databases are not updated in real time. For internal company processes, it is therefore recommended to establish a regular, documented verification schedule rather than conducting a one-time verification upon initial delivery.

Cross-border supply chains: When working with suppliers from multiple countries, different national cadastral systems can affect geodata formats. A flexible import logic significantly reduces the effort required to coordinate with suppliers in this regard.

Conclusion & Proposed Solution

There is no getting around the geolocation requirement under the EUDR. It is an integral part of the regulation and applies to every company that places relevant raw materials on the market. Once the number of suppliers reaches a certain threshold, it becomes virtually impossible to manage this process accurately by hand. lawcode’s EUDR solution not only makes the verification process manageable but also ensures robust documentation—from format checks during import and cross-referencing with deforestation data to clear map visualizations. This is an important step toward full EUDR implementation. If you’d like to see how this works in your own supply chain, you can request a no-obligation demo.