The EUDR Benchmarking list is here - and comes as a surprise
The European Union Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) continues to take momentum. On 22 May 2025, the EU Commission published an initial list for country benchmarking, which classifies all countries in the world into three risk categories in order to map the risk of deforestation associated with beef, cocoa, coffee, palm oil, rubber, soy, and timber. These raw materials and their products are often produced on illegally deforested land, which the comprehensive EUDR obligations are intended to prevent.
Countries of origin determine the scope of due diligence and control obligations
In order to map the risk of deforestation in the supply chain of the product concerned as accurately as possible, Article 29 EUDR provides for a risk-based approach. This involves classifying the country of origin of a product into one of three risk categories. The categories are “low risk,” “normal risk,” and “high risk.” Countries are classified primarily according to quantitative criteria. According to the methodology applied by the Commission, the decisive factors are the rate of deforestation and forest degradation, the extent of expansion of agricultural land for relevant commodities, and production trends of relevant commodities and products. In addition, agreements concluded and measures taken by the respective countries to protect against deforestation are taken into account.
However, the assessment carried out according to these criteria not only has an impact on the extent of deforestation but also has direct consequences for the scope of due diligence required under the EUDR. For example, operators and traders enjoy simplified due diligence obligations when sourcing relevant products from “low-risk” countries, as they are required to collect information but not to assess and mitigate risks. However, this only applies if, after assessing the complexity of the supply chain and the risk of circumvention of the regulation or mixing with products of unknown origin, the companies concerned have ensured that the relevant raw materials and products were produced exclusively in low-risk countries.
In addition, the scope of the Member States' control obligations for compliance with the EUDR obligations is also measured according to country benchmarking. The number of operators to be controlled per year is graded according to the three risk categories. Accordingly, Member States shall ensure that at least 1% of operators with products from low-risk countries are controlled each year. For countries with normal risk, this figure is at least 3%; for countries with high risk, it is at least 9%.
Classification of the majority of countries as “low risk” comes as a surprise
The only countries classified as “high risk” are Belarus, North Korea, Myanmar, and Russia. This is mainly because these countries are subject to United Nations or EU sanctions on the import or export of goods covered by the EUDR. Countries classified as “normal risk” are not explicitly listed in the country list published by the Commission, but are considered countries that are neither high nor low risk. Unsurprisingly, the countries classified as low risk include all EU member states and all countries in the European Economic Area. What is surprising, however, is the classification of countries with large areas of rainforest, such as Brazil and Côte d'Ivoire, as “normal risk” countries. The ongoing deforestation in these countries has been known for decades. The rapid deforestation in Brazil prompted the EU Economic and Social Committee to issue a statement in November last year, in which it highlighted the clearing of the Brazilian rainforest and explicitly mentioned the associated ecological risk. It is not reasonable why there is said to be no high risk of deforestation.
Simplification of the EUDR through the back door?
It is suspected that labeling countries with a high risk of deforestation as merely “normal risk” is a way of easing regulatory pressure through the back door. Last year, after strong opposition from affected companies, the EU postponed the implementation of the EUDR by one year, pushing the deadline to the end of 2025. In addition, due diligence and information requirements were to be significantly simplified. Such simplification is apparently also to be achieved indirectly through the country benchmarking that has now been published. Companies that source the affected raw materials from countries with a low risk of deforestation can therefore breathe a sigh of relief. However, it remains to be seen whether the EUDR will still be able to live up to its own ambitions. The question could arise as to whether the EUDR will ultimately just create more bureaucracy. Only the coming years will provide a clear answer to this question. Regardless of this, companies should begin implementing the EUDR as soon as possible in order to fulfill their due diligence obligations and avoid sanctions.
