Article summary: Traceability is shifting from “who is it?” to “who is it, and exactly where has it been?”. EUDR is a clear signal that geolocation is becoming a normal part of market access, while national traceability programmes are accelerating. This post explains what “spatial compliance” means operationally, with two quick snapshots from NSW and South Africa, and a minimum-viable record-keeping checklist you can act on.
For a long time, compliance was mostly about identity: official tags, PICs, movement documents, and database uploads.
That’s still true, but the direction is clear: market access is becoming more spatial. It’s no longer enough to prove which animals or products are involved. Increasingly, you’ll be asked to prove where, down to a coordinate or boundary.
Think of it as a shift from:
-
Traceability = “Who is it?”
to -
Traceability = “Who is it, and where exactly has it been?”
Why compliance is becoming spatial
A few forces are converging:
-
Deforestation and land-use rules that require proof tied to specific production locations.
-
Disease response and containment that relies on fast, location-linked movement histories.
-
Export market expectations that reward consistent, auditable records across the whole chain.
-
More digital infrastructure (platforms and national programmes) that make location data easier to capture, share, and check.
The outcome: geolocation is moving from “nice to have” to “operationally expected”.
EUDR: the clearest “timing signal” that geolocation matters
EUDR (the EU Deforestation Regulation) is a strong example of compliance becoming spatial.
In practice, it pushes supply chains to collect and pass on geolocations of production locations, alongside normal product and traceability information.
What the Integrity Systems update signalled in Nov 2025
In November 2025, Integrity Systems highlighted an EU proposal that kept a 30 December 2025 compliance date in place at the time, with a proposed six-month transition period where authorities could issue warnings rather than penalties. The message to producers was simple: start sharing geolocation now, because eligibility risk shows up when the market flips the switch.
Even though EUDR timing has since shifted again (see below), that November update is still useful as a “signal”: the operational expectation is moving towards geolocation as a standard trade input.
Where the EUDR dates landed (and why the direction still matters)
EUDR implementation has since been further postponed, with the EU applying it later for different business sizes.
The key point for producers is not the exact date. It’s the shape of the requirement:
-
Buyers need location data.
-
That data needs to be consistent and auditable.
-
And it needs to flow cleanly through the chain.
Why geolocation data matters operationally (not just administratively)
Geolocation requirements sound simple until you try to operationalise them across a real farm system.
Common friction points include:
-
Multiple properties, blocks, or enterprises (and different IDs for each).
-
Leased ground and agistment, where boundaries and dates matter.
-
Mob movements that happen quickly, but are recorded later (or inconsistently).
-
“Local knowledge” living in people’s heads, not in an audit-ready record.
If compliance is spatial, then your on-farm routines must be spatial too.
The rise of traceability platforms: not just databases, but networks
Alongside EUDR-style requirements, we’re seeing faster rollout of national traceability programmes and platforms. The trend is toward systems that can:
-
link animals to locations,
-
capture movements more reliably,
-
and share standardised movement data across the value chain.
Two quick snapshots show how this is playing out in very different contexts.
Case snapshot 1: NSW sheep and goat eID and the power of deadlines
NSW is a good example of how adoption is “pulled forward” with a mix of mandate plus incentives.
-
Mandatory eID tagging applied for sheep and goats born from 1 January 2025.
-
NSW also used a time-limited lever: a per-tag discount for eligible white NLIS devices, with a clear end date (or until funds were exhausted).
Whether you loved it or hated it, the policy lesson is clear: when governments want rapid adoption, they use deadlines and discounts to change behaviour quickly.
Operationally, that kind of pressure exposes the farms (and supply chains) that already have:
-
clear property IDs,
-
disciplined movement capture,
-
and staff who know the routine.
Case snapshot 2: South Africa RMIS Phase 2 and traceability tied to disease response
South Africa’s RMIS Phase 2 rollout is a strong example of traceability being framed as both:
-
biosecurity infrastructure, and
-
market access infrastructure.
Phase 2 focused on integrating multiple livestock systems to securely share movement data in a standardised way, and it was explicitly linked to faster disease response and export readiness. It also included tools built during Foot-and-Mouth Disease outbreaks, plus a movement app aimed at making participation possible even for producers not already using digital systems.
The “signal” here is bigger than one platform: traceability is being treated as a national capability that supports outbreak control and trade confidence.
Minimum viable record-keeping for a spatial compliance world
If you do nothing else, aim for a minimum standard you can stand behind in an audit or buyer review.
1) Property boundaries (kept current)
-
Maintain an up-to-date boundary for every property or block used for production.
-
Record changes immediately (leases, agistment, subdividing, new blocks).
-
Make sure you can answer: which animals were on which block, during which dates?
2) PICs, farm IDs, and location identifiers (one source of truth)
-
Keep a single, shared list of your identifiers (PICs and any other required IDs).
-
Make it easy for staff to find and use the correct ID every time.
-
Avoid “close enough” shortcuts that create mismatches later.
3) Movement logs (captured like it matters)
For every movement, record:
-
date (and time range if relevant),
-
origin and destination identifiers,
-
number of head and/or individual IDs (where required),
-
transporter/saleyard/agent details (where relevant),
-
and a quick reconciliation step (does what moved match what was reported?).
4) Audit-ready storage (fast to retrieve, hard to lose)
-
Store records so they can be produced quickly: movement files, purchase/sale documentation, boundary updates, and any supporting notes.
-
Use backups and access controls so you don’t lose history when devices change or staff turn over.
5) Staff routines (simple, consistent, trained)
-
Build a repeatable routine: capture, verify, store.
-
Train new staff early, and refresh before busy seasons.
-
Decide how exceptions are handled (lost tags, unreadable IDs, disputed locations) before they happen.
The takeaway
Market access is getting more geographic. EUDR puts geolocation front and centre, and national traceability programmes are accelerating in parallel.
The farms that cope best won’t be the ones with the most complicated systems. They’ll be the ones with:
-
tidy boundaries,
-
disciplined movement capture,
-
and records that are easy to audit when the question comes:
“Prove where this came from.”
- The Dedicated Team of Pasture.io, 2025-12-02