How Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay are building EUDR compliance

Why the Netherlands is not a bystander

When most people picture the Dutch role in global agricultural trade, they think of flowers, dairy, or vegetables. What they less often picture is soy. Yet the Netherlands is the second-largest destination for soybean imports from the Mercosur region within the EU, receiving around 15% of all shipments—behind only Spain. For soy meal, used extensively in compound animal feed, the Dutch share rises to 16% of total EU imports. The feed sector depends on South American soy as a protein ingredient that cannot easily be substituted at scale. 

The Mercosur region produces more than half of the world’s soy. Brazil is the largest supplier, but Argentina, Paraguay, and Uruguay together provide a substantial and strategically important share. For Dutch companies, this means that every kilogram of soy, every ton of beef, and every cubic metre of wood from these countries will soon need to arrive with a robust digital passport. The paperwork is formidable, and many of the systems needed to generate it did not exist two years ago. 

EUDR Country Risk Results for Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay and Chile

The EU’s EUDR countryrisk classification sorts all countries into low, standard, or high risk, determining how strict duediligence and customs checks will be. Lowrisk countries benefit from simplified procedures (1% inspections), while standard and highrisk countries must meet full duediligence requirements; the only difference is inspection intensity (3% vs. 9%). 

In the benchmarking, Argentina and Paraguay are placed in the standardrisk tier. Both governments objected, especially because the EUMercosur agreement explicitly states that the trade deal should be “favorably considered” in EUDR risk assessments. Still, the Commission pointed to persistent deforestation pressures: 

• Argentina continues to experience forest loss in the Gran Chaco, one of the world’s fastestshrinking dry forests. 

• Paraguay has a longstanding zerodeforestation law in the east, but Global Forest Watch data shows that overall national deforestation remains among the highest globally, driven mainly by expansion in the Chaco for cattle ranching and ongoing illegal clearing. 

By contrast, Uruguay and Chile received a lowrisk designation, reflecting their comparatively low deforestation rates and stronger forestgovernance systems. 

Argentina's head start — and its headaches

Of the four Southern Cone countries covered by the LAN Office Cono Sur, Argentina has moved furthest. VISEC (Visión Sectorial del Gran Chaco), a platform created in 2019 by Argentina's grain export and oilseed crushing sector, with support from The Nature Conservancy and Tropical Forest Alliance, now offers what is arguably the most complete EUDR compliance system outside Brazil for both soy and beef supply chains. Farms register their plots, satellite imagery verifies land use going back to 2007, transport documents are digitally tracked from field to port via the electronic waybill system, and an independent auditor issues a Compliance Product Certificate for every shipment. The system is free for farmers; exporters carry the cost. The Bolsa de Comercio de Rosario administers the platform. 

VISEC’s progress reflects a broader mindset shift. Initially, Argentina’s political and sectoral position was largely oppositional to the EUDR, and preparations remained limited as long as the focus was on contesting the regulation. That stance has evolved. While key actors remain critical of the EUDR as legislation, there is now a clear recognition that, in parallel to political objections, the country must prepare as well as possible for implementation. VISEC’s relatively advanced state of development, and the fact that public and private actors increasingly work together through the platform, are concrete expressions of this shift. 

The LAN Office has maintained a working relationship with VISEC since 2021. This gives LVVN early and continuous insight into how the system functions and positions the Netherlands as an informed partner at a moment when VISEC is actively seeking validation from EU member state authorities. VISEC has applied for acknowledgement as an EUDR risk‑mitigation system at the NVWA (the Dutch competent authority). However, the strict criteria for such systems, especially regarding governance, may be a step too far even for the most robust soy and beef control systems in South America – though they do incentivize further improvements. The platform is also being adopted as the technological backbone for Paraguay's new public traceability system, RETSA, creating a potential cross-border compliance architecture along the Paraná river port complex, directly relevant to Dutch importers whose soy passes through those facilities. 

Paraguay: a legal tradition that counts for nothing, yet

Paraguay presents the region's sharpest irony. Its zero-deforestation law in the eastern productive region dates from 1994. Despite that, problems are huge in the Chaco region, the eastern part where deforestation and land use change is largely happening.   

Two compliance platforms are in development: RETSA, a public system led by the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, and SISE, a private inter-guild platform with satellite monitoring and QR-code chain-of-custody from field to export border. RETSA is fully government‑controlled and combines multi‑source deforestation data with at least 18 different legality document streams. It is being developed not only for soy, but also for cattle and wood. The RETSA Beef system was launched on 13 April with high‑level attendance and considerable media coverage, partly in response to earlier critical reports on the leather sector. Protests by an Indigenous organization are, however, ongoing – including demonstrations in Italy – arguing that some leather originates from areas with conflicts involving Indigenous communities. If it functions as designed, RETSA should be able to detect such conflicts and illegal land use. 

Traceability in cattle (for both beef and leather) is currently much more advanced than in soy. This has triggered strong efforts to improve soy traceability, given the economic importance of the soy sector. Most Paraguayan soy exports pass through crushing facilities in Argentina, which makes alignment with Argentina’s VISEC system crucial. RETSA for soy therefore follows the VISEC example and uses its software. EUDR has provided leverage for formalizing both the soy sector and land‑governance arrangements in Paraguay; it will be critical that EUDR implementation actually goes ahead at the end of the year for these gains to materialize. As it evolves, RETSA – like VISEC – can support broader due‑diligence efforts and be combined with certification and other supply‑chain data. 

SISE the second platform, is a private inter-guild system with satellite monitoring and QR-code chain-of-custody from field to export border. It already has over 1,600 registered producers and nearly 8,000 production units. The additional cost for physical segregation is estimated at USD 16 per ton. Unlike RETSA, SISE is a private system set up for soy and currently lacks third‑party verification of legality, making it likely that the two systems will eventually need to cooperate or interoperate to provide a single credible compliance architecture. 

Uruguay: well-positioned

Uruguay is the smallest soy producer of the three countries, and its sales to the EU are modest and variable. It is, however, in the best regulatory position. Its national deforestation-free platform was launched in October 2024, built on official registries including a national cadaster dating to 1907 and comprehensive satellite-verified land use plans. The system issues a compliance certificate at the farm level. The only complication is physical: Uruguay exports virtually all its soy through just two ports. Full segregation of EUDR-compliant cargo requires either universal adoption across all exporters using those ports, or treating certified soy as specialty cargo,  which raises costs and complicates logistics for a commodity that has historically moved in bulk. 

Uruguay’s beef sector is even more advanced in traceability. The country has had mandatory individual cattle traceability since 2006, with every animal tagged and tracked through a national database (SNIG). This system already provides plotlevel geolocation and movement records—capabilities that align closely with EUDR requirements for deforestationfree beef supply chains. As a result, Uruguay is considered one of the few global exporters structurally capable of meeting EUDR beef traceability with relatively limited adjustments. 

Chile; the odd one out

Chile presents a markedly different EUDR context from the Mercosur countries discussed above. The country was classified as low risk under the EU benchmarking system and is not a significant soybean producer or exporter, reducing its direct exposure compared to Argentina, Paraguay, or Brazil. Chile’s main areas of exposure are instead linked to forestry products and, to a lesser extent, cattle-related supply chains. 

During 2025, Chile’s Office of Agricultural Studies and Policies (ODEPA), through a project financed by AL-INVEST Verde, carried out a national assessment of the country’s preparedness for EUDR implementation. The study identified important gaps in traceability systems, geolocation capacities, and interinstitutional coordination, while also highlighting Chile’s relatively favorable position compared to higher-risk exporting countries. A second phase beginning in 2026 will focus on implementation and capacity building, including technical guidelines, institutional coordination mechanisms, stakeholder training, and practical support tools for exporters. 

Unlike the Mercosur countries, Chile is not part of the EU–Mercosur trade negotiations and maintains a separate trade relationship with the European Union under its own bilateral agreements. 

The role of soy certification

The Roundtable on Responsible Soy (RTRS), the robust multi-stakeholder-governed certification system for soy that has been supported by the Netherlands and its soy stakeholders since its start, could also control on EUDR and various other essential sustainability criteria for soy in Argentina and other soy producing countries. RTRS requires annual field audits which can be crucial to control on legality issues and is one of the most robust certifications that can be used for the purpose of EUDR. RTRS also has applied for acknowledgement as an EUDR risk mitigation system at the Dutch Competent Authority, which, as mentioned, is strict. 

So far, the Dutch and other European support for responsible soy production certified by RTRS and other systems has mostly taken place by using the book and claim credit system. Credits support responsible production at individual farms but have no recognition under the EUDR legislation as they are not directly linked to the physical flow. Segregated certified soy supply is however very costly, especially from countries where the uptake still has been limited such as Argentina and Paraguay.  

With the new developments meant for EUDR preparations, it is possible to blend certified soy (+ its data) into fully verified EUDR- compliant supply chains -for example by VISEC and RETSA. This represents a new "Mass Balance" model that is fully controlled on deforestation and legal compliance for EUDR and is also partly certified including control on many more criteria such as on labour, community relations and chemicals management. As we see, downstream actors tend to prefer systems that help them comply with multiple regulations and due diligence obligations and commitments simultaneously. Multi layered data management in soy and other commodities is the next step to combine such supply chain data, including certification data supporting EUDR compliance and beyond. 

Conclusion

Across Argentina, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chile, EUDR preparedness has moved from concept to concrete systems: geolocation, satellite monitoring, and legality checks are now being built into soy, beef, and forestry supply chains. But the starting points and speeds differ sharply. Argentina and Uruguay are relatively advanced, Chile is catching up from a favorable low‑risk position, while Paraguay is still held back by political resistance and slower practical implementation. Once the EUDR enters into force, these differences will translate into uneven impacts on trade flows, compliance costs, and market access. 

In most countries  (with Paraguay being the main exception) public and private actors increasingly accept that the EUDR is coming and are preparing accordingly. This is visible in the emergence of reasonably sophisticated systems such as VISEC in Argentina, Uruguay’s national deforestation‑free platform, and Chile’s planned upgrades to its traceability and geolocation infrastructure. Not all of these systems are yet complete, but they show a clear shift from only contesting the regulation to also organizing for compliance. They also show that there is more than one successful pathway to EUDR implementation. Argentina illustrates the strength of industry-led collective action in building shared traceability infrastructure. Uruguay highlights the value of decades of investment in robust public registries and digital governance. Chile demonstrates that implementation can be proportionate to actual risk and sector exposure, while Paraguay reminds us that technology alone is not enough without institutional coordination and sustained political commitment. Rather than converging towards a single institutional model, the Southern Cone is demonstrating that effective due diligence can be achieved through different combinations of public registries, private traceability platforms, satellite monitoring, certification schemes, and independent verification. 

At the same time, all four countries are actively seeking cooperation with the EU and with individual member states, including the Netherlands. They want to keep the conversation going, learn what full compliance actually requires in practice, and adjust their systems accordingly – because implementation is technically and institutionally demanding. Paraguay is explicitly requesting support for capacity building; Argentina, through VISEC, is looking for deeper technical exchange with the NVWA on risk‑mitigation and recognition. Even where political frustration with the EUDR – and with the benchmarking in particular – remains high, there is a clear interest in practical dialogue with European partners on how to comply. 
 
These countries are also looking specifically to the Netherlands, given that a significant share of their soy enters Europe through the Port of Rotterdam. For the Netherlands, this creates not only a diplomatic and technical role, but also a direct strategic interest: smooth EUDR compliance in origin countries helps safeguard the continuity of Dutch import flows. 

More information

Would you like to know more about the work done by the LVVN Office Cono Sur? You can visit the Landeninformatie | Agroberichten Buitenlandof the Dutch Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature. You can also send an email to the LAN team in Buenos Aires and Santiago de Chile: bue-lvvn@minbuza.nl and stg-lnv@minbuza.nl.