Before anyone can ask whether a plot was deforested after 2020, they have to know exactly which patch of ground the plot is. Under the EU Deforestation Regulation that patch is defined by coordinates you supply — and if the coordinates are wrong, every deforestation check downstream is being run on the wrong piece of the planet. Geolocation isn't the paperwork around the compliance check. It's the thing the check stands on.
What the regulation actually asks for
As of September 2026, Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 requires the due-diligence statement to carry the geolocation of all plots of land where the relevant commodity was produced. The regulation defines geolocation by latitude and longitude to at least six decimal places; for any plot larger than four hectares (other than cattle) it must be a polygon — enough points to describe the plot's perimeter — not a single dropped pin. (Details and thresholds have been amended before; confirm against the current text of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 before you rely on them.) Six decimal places is roughly 0.1 m of precision — the regulation is asking for real geometry, not an approximate location.
Why a sloppy coordinate quietly breaks everything
The deforestation assessment is a spatial query: take the plot boundary, look at what the satellite archive shows inside it since the 2020 cut-off. That query is only ever as good as the boundary you hand it. A polygon that is offset, drawn in the wrong coordinate reference system, or generalised into a rough rectangle points the analysis at ground the crop never grew on — and the answer it returns, compliant or not, describes the wrong place. The failure is silent: the report still generates, the map still looks authoritative, and nobody sees that it was asked about the field next door.
The mistakes that come up again and again
- A single point for a large estate. One centroid stands in for hundreds of hectares of mixed cover, so the check samples whatever happens to sit under that pin.
- Boundaries that don't match the planted area. Polygons that sweep in roads, firebreaks, watercourses and unplanted bush dilute the plot with land that behaves nothing like the crop — and can manufacture apparent "loss" that was never forest to begin with.
- The wrong datum or projection. Coordinates that are internally consistent but sit in the wrong reference system land tens or hundreds of metres off the ground truth.
- Overlaps and gaps. Neighbouring plots that overlap, or a supply base with holes in it, mean the same hectare is double-counted or no plot at all — a topology problem that only shows up when someone checks the geometry as a whole.
How satellite imagery turns coordinates into evidence
The same archive that answers the deforestation question also lets you build and verify the geometry it runs on. Plot boundaries can be digitised against recent high-resolution imagery so the polygon follows the actual planted edge, not a hand-sketch. Supplied coordinates can be checked the other way round: does the land inside this polygon actually read as plantation or forest on the imagery, or is the pin sitting on bare ground, a dam or a settlement? Declared area can be compared with the mapped area; overlaps, gaps and self-intersecting polygons can be caught before they reach a file. And each verified boundary can be tied to its pre-2021 baseline, so the plot arrives at the deforestation check already anchored to what was there before the cut-off.
None of this requires trusting a supplier's spreadsheet on faith. A coordinate you can test against an image is evidence; a coordinate you can't is a claim — and EUDR due diligence is meant to run on the former.
Where the line sits
TerraX produces and signs the spatial evidence — clean, verified plot geometry, an area and land-cover check on each polygon, and the pre-2021 baseline attached — with its uncertainty stated. It does not issue an EUDR determination, collect the legal-ownership and supply-chain records the statement also needs, or guarantee acceptance by a competent authority. That determination, and its consequences, remain yours. What we hand over is geometry a due-diligence file can be built on without a hidden fault at the foundation.
Getting the coordinates right is the unglamorous half of EUDR that decides whether the rest of the file means anything. It's part of our EUDR forestry compliance service — if you're assembling a plot base for the deadline, tell us roughly how many plots and where, and we'll start with the geometry.