Leaked review shows that EU law is failing to prevent $100bn a year trade in illegal timber - or that rules are even being implemented

This article is more than 4 years old

This article is more than 4 years old

There is “no solid evidence” that an EU law has done anything to prevent the illegal timber trade or even that it has been implemented, according to a draft commission review seen by the Guardian.

Nine EU countries have still not imposed penalties or taken action against timber traffickers and six others have yet to carry out checks on importers as required by the EU’s timber regulation.

The review finds that “only a fraction” of private sector firms use independent monitoring groups to source their timber, and that loopholes anyway exempt many types of timber import from scrutiny.

Alexandra Pardal, a spokeswoman for the campaign group Global Witness, said that the EU’s law had been a landmark in the fight against deforestation “but almost three years after its introduction, we haven’t seen a single prosecution in Europe.”

“If EU member states are serious about cracking down on the drivers of illegal logging, they need to start abiding by their own laws – by seizing illicit timber and prosecuting the companies that import it.”

Global Witness says that it has presented EU authorities with “clear evidence” of illegal timber being exported to Europe from the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central African Republic, but that no action was taken.

Greenpeace is also demanding an Interpol investigation into a boat that it suspects of being laden with illegal timber, which is reportedly docked in Bilbao at present, after being towed away from the French coast.

The global illegal logging industry is worth up to$100bn a year, according to Interpol estimates.

The commission review did detect a drop in timber imports to the EU between 2010 and 2013, but found that this was mostly because of economic stagnation in Europe and high timber demand in Asia.

“There is no solid evidence to show that the due diligence system obligation so far has been effective in preventing illegally harvested timber and that operators across the EU have consistently implemented their due diligence requirements to date,” it says.

Part of the problem is that only the first seller of timber to the European market has to verify a product’s legality, so contraband spot checks tend to be ineffective.

“Competent authorities do not yet have the capacity and resources they would need for effective application of the regulation,” the review says.

It goes on: “Only a fraction of operators, with a rough estimate of 100 to 200, currently use a due diligence service with monitoring organisation support and verification services.”

The findings chime with a recent European Court of Auditors study which reported that the regulation had been poorly designed, badly managed and largely ineffective.

Government authorities are often too under-resourced to carry out its measures thoroughly. Greece and Hungary are currently facing legal proceedings for non-implementation of the law.



“Proper checks on timber being traded in the EU are the keystone of the EU Timber Regulation,” said Emily Unwin, a lawyer for the green law firm, ClientEarth. “This law can and must prevent illegal logging around the world, but we have to get the enforcement right. Industry needs accountability. Governments must commit resources.”

Illegal logging is thought to be responsible for around one-fifth of greenhouse gas emissions, more than from all the world’s ships, trains, planes and cars combined.