it_team4_FOREst 24 March 2026Berlin, 24 March: Against the backdrop of the debate on the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), the German Environment Aid (DUH) discussed among others how digitisation supports the implementation of the EU Deforestation Regulation. Using the coffee sector as an example, a panel debated how transparency, traceability and risk management can be implemented and how supply chains can be made transparent.
The presentation by Prof. Dr Jan‑Peter Mund of the Hochschule für nachhaltige Entwicklung Eberswalde offers a practical roadmap for coffee producers and traders to meet the new EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR).
The regulation obliges operators to prove that their commodities are deforestation‑free and that they comply with the legislation of the producing country (EUDR Art 3). Crucially, the law demands polygon‑accurate geolocation of every plot where coffee is grown and sets a cut‑off date of 31 December 2020 for any deforestation that may have occurred (EUDR Art 2 (27)). While global forest‑cover datasets such as Hansen et al. (2013) are useful, Prof. Dr Jan Peter Mund stresses that they must be interpreted against EUDR‑specific definitions of forest and land‑use.
To build a transparent and trustworthy supply chain, the Prof. Dr Jan Peter Mund outlines several technical and organisational requirements. First, national cadastral data must be integrated and referenced at the parcel level, providing a clear, legally compliant land‑use record. Remote‑sensing (RS) time‑series are needed to demonstrate compliance with the cut‑off date, and an explicit “no deforestation after 31 December 2020” check must be performed. A single, documented forest definition—covering tree height and canopy cover—is essential, as is a harmonised set of classification rules for coffee grown in agro‑forestry systems. The latter should include geofencing of collection points and buffer zones of one to five kilometres around protected areas.
Standardised sensor suites are recommended: optical imagery (RGB via Google Earth Engine), synthetic‑aperture radar (SAR) backscatter, and very‑high‑resolution (VHR) satellite data from providers such as Maxar, Airbus or WorldView. These data feed stratified sampling procedures that generate a full audit trail. The analytical workflow must rely on open geospatial formats (GeoJSON or GeoPackage, EPSG :4326) and report accuracy through confusion matrices, producer’s and user’s accuracy, and confidence intervals.
His presentation also highlights typical “leakages” that can undermine Monitoring‑Reporting‑Verification (MRV). Unclear or outdated parcel boundaries, fragmented polygons, and missing temporal stamps for land‑use changes impede reliable cut‑off assessments. Divergent forest definitions—over four thousand exist globally, with more than ten endorsed by UN bodies—create inconsistencies across certifications. Variable sensor quality, cloud cover, and seasonal effects further limit the continuity of RS time‑series. Finally, proprietary “black‑box” algorithms without documented training data or audit trails jeopardise reproducibility.
Country‑specific snapshots illustrate how these challenges manifest across the main coffee‑producing regions. In Colombia, strong sector organisations (FNC/Cenicafé) provide a solid baseline, yet small‑scale agro‑forestry complicates forest‑non‑forest discrimination and the presence of shade trees amplifies MRV leakages. Brazil benefits from precise parcel delineation, robust open data (MapBiomas, PRODES) and comprehensive environmental monitoring, but faces regional deforestation fronts and mismatches between national and EUDR forest definitions. Ethiopia’s predominantly smallholder landscape makes historical cut‑off evidence feasible through long‑term RS records, but limited cadastral access and the need for field‑based data collection pose hurdles. Vietnam enjoys clear parcel structures and expanding digital agriculture programmes, yet historic forest conversion and restricted cadastral access for non‑government actors require supplementary field surveys.
A concrete regional case study from Huila, Colombia (2020‑2023) demonstrates a best‑practice scenario. Minimal forest‑cover change, an existing data‑sharing agreement among cooperatives, publicly accessible cadastral layers, and app‑based farmer field recordings (point and polygon) for certifications such as Rainforest Alliance, UTZ and Fairtrade enable a transparent, parcel‑level traceability chain.
In summary, his presentation makes clear that successful EUDR compliance in the coffee sector hinges on the integration of high‑resolution remote sensing, standardised geospatial data formats, unified forest definitions, and strong collaboration with local producer organisations. By addressing the identified leakages and adopting the outlined technical standards, coffee supply chains can not only meet regulatory demands but also strengthen consumer confidence and contribute to global forest preservation.