Quick summary: Discover how country benchmarking in EUDR risk assessment helps businesses identify high-risk regions for deforestation and implement effective compliance strategies to meet the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR) requirements.
Country benchmarking in EUDR is the European Commission’s system for classifying every country of production as low, standard, or high risk for deforestation under the EU Deforestation Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, Article 29). The tier sets how much due diligence you perform and how often authorities check your shipments: 1% of operators for low-risk origins, 3% for standard-risk, and 9% (plus 9% of product volume) for high-risk. The first official list took effect on 22 May 2025 under Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093, naming four high-risk countries (Belarus, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia), around 50 standard-risk countries, and roughly 140 low-risk countries. Crucially, benchmarking does not remove the core obligation: every operator must still file a Due Diligence Statement and provide plot-level geolocation, whatever the tier.
Key takeaways
Country benchmarking in EUDR is the three-tier system the European Commission uses to rank each country or region within a country by its risk of producing commodities linked to deforestation and forest degradation. Introduced under Article 29 of the EU Deforestation Regulation (Regulation (EU) 2023/1115), it exists to do one practical thing: match the intensity of due diligence to the actual deforestation risk of where you source.
In plain terms: benchmarking is a filter on your supply chain. Source from a high-risk origin and you inherit intensive checks, more documentation, and higher rejection risk. Source from a low-risk origin and you qualify for simplified due diligence. But and this is the point most 2024-era explainers miss no tier removes the baseline obligation to file a Due Diligence Statement and provide plot-level geolocation.
Each origin country sits in exactly one tier. The tier does three things at once it labels the origin, sets your workload, and sets your audit odds:
| Risk tier | Example origins (first 2025 list) | Your due-diligence obligation | Authority check rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| High risk | Belarus, Myanmar, North Korea, Russia (largely sanctions-driven) | Enhanced due diligence: full risk assessment + mitigation, granular evidence, stricter supplier checks | 9% of operators + 9% of volume |
| Standard risk | Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia, Côte d’Ivoire, Cameroon, DRC (and any country not otherwise listed) | Full due diligence: assess and mitigate risk; submit DDS | 3% of operators |
| Low risk | All 27 EU states, UK, US, Canada, China, Japan, Australia, South Africa (~140 total) | Simplified due diligence: collect info + DDS; skip full risk assessment/mitigation (but still screen for circumvention/mixing) | 1% of operators |
Source: Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093, list published 22 May 2025. Standard-risk countries are not individually listed — any country not classified low or high defaults to standard risk. Classifications are dynamic; confirm the current tier on the EC Green Forum before sourcing decisions.
The result: country benchmarking in EUDR becomes a source of anxiety rather than a planning tool, because the sourcing map and the risk map are maintained separately and drift apart.
How does your sourcing country impact your EUDR obligations?
Understand the EU’s country risk classifications and what they mean for your due diligence and compliance strategy.
Read the Complete Guide to EUDR Country Risk Classifications
This is where automated traceability changes the equation. Rather than treating benchmarking as an annual lookup, TraceX EUDR Solutions wires the EU country tiers directly into your live supplier and plot data, so the risk map and the sourcing map are the same map.
Does low-risk classification exempt me from EUDR due diligence?
No. Low-risk classification under EUDR country benchmarking unlocks simplified due diligence you collect supply-chain information and still file a Due Diligence Statement, but you are not required to complete the full risk assessment and mitigation steps. You must still provide geolocation and screen for the risk of circumvention or mixing with product from standard- or high-risk origins. Certifications such as RSPO or FSC can support this risk screening but do not replace the DDS or geolocation requirement in any tier.
A common assumption is that a certificate (RSPO for palm oil, FSC for wood) neutralises a standard- or high-risk classification. It does not. Certifications are risk-mitigation support evidence that strengthens a risk assessment not a substitute for geolocation, the DDS, or plot-level deforestation-free proof.
Consider an importer sourcing natural rubber across Southeast Asia. Under country benchmarking in EUDR, the origin countries fall into standard risk meaning full due diligence, not the simplified path.
The lesson generalises: the tier tells you how much to prove; a live traceability layer is what lets you prove it at the check rate the tier imposes without rebuilding the evidence pack by hand each time.
Are certifications enough to demonstrate EUDR compliance?
Learn which certifications can support your due diligence and where additional evidence is still required.
Read the Complete Guide to EUDR Certifications

| Benchmarking task | Manual / spreadsheet approach | Automated (TraceX) |
|---|---|---|
| Assigning tiers to origins | Look up each country by hand; easy to miss updates | Origins matched to the live EU list automatically |
| Reacting to tier changes | Discovered late, often at audit | Affected suppliers flagged the moment a tier shifts |
| Mixed-origin SKUs | Multiple tiers tracked in parallel sheets | Each origin scored and routed to the right workflow |
| Simplified vs. full due diligence | Manually decided, inconsistently applied | Workflow auto-routes by tier; DDS always required |
| Audit / DDS readiness | Evidence pack rebuilt per shipment | Validated, TRACES-ready pack assembled continuously |
If you’re assessing a compliance platform against country benchmarking in EUDR, run it through this checklist every unchecked box is a shipment risk:
It is the European Commission’s system, under Article 29 of Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, that classifies each country of production as low, standard, or high risk for deforestation. The tier determines how much due diligence you perform and how frequently authorities check your shipments.
On 22 May 2025, through Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2025/1093, published on the Commission’s Green Forum platform. A first review was scheduled for 2026 using updated FAO forest data, so classifications can change.
The first list names four: Belarus, Myanmar, North Korea, and Russia. These designations are driven largely by existing UN or EU sanctions on the relevant commodities rather than deforestation rates alone.
Competent authorities must check at least 1% of operators for low-risk origins, 3% for standard-risk, and 9% of operators plus 9% of product volume for high-risk origins.
No. Low risk unlocks simplified due diligence you collect information and still file a Due Diligence Statement with geolocation, but you are not required to complete full risk assessment and mitigation. You must still screen for circumvention and mixing.
No. Certifications support your risk assessment and mitigation but do not replace geolocation, the DDS, or plot-level deforestation-free evidence. They help you satisfy the workload the tier sets; they don’t remove it.
Continuously. Because the list is reviewed and revised, treat benchmarking as a live signal tied to each supplier origin rather than a one-time lookup a tier change can alter your entire documentation burden.