A review of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) is currently underway. NEPCon is engaging in the public consultation to help improve the effectiveness of this landmark legislation. Here we share our thoughts and suggestions for improvements.
Since the EUTR came into force in March 2013, NEPCon has worked extensively with EU timber product importers and their suppliers worldwide to meet the regulation.
“Our experience has confirmed that the EUTR is a sound and feasible instrument with a potential to cause far reaching and meaningful change in the international timber trade,” says Alexandra Banks, lawyer and NEPCon timber legality expert.
“However, it is now time for the world to see the EUTR in action, creating real changes on the ground.”
The EUTR has raised the level of engagement by timber-exporting countries to ensure that exports are verified to be of legal origin, however more than two years have passed without a successful prosecution in the EU. Yet there is no shortage of indications of illegal timber flowing into the EU and even being produced inside the EU itself (see table). Most recently, Greenpeace reported on illegal timber flows from Brazil, whilst civilians in Romania protested against illegal destruction of forests there.
“In our opinion, there is nothing wrong with the wording of the EUTR or the requirements it poses; however the impact of any law is also determined by how it works in practice. The bottom line for us is that the European Commission needs to take three key steps for the EUTR to work properly”, says Ms Banks.
Three steps to efficiency
1 Ensure a high level of enforcement across all member states
Most parties, including many within the industry itself, agree that the uneven enforcement is a major issue that needs to be solved to ensure the EUTR’s objectives are met.
The Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF) recently highlighted this as a major problem at the forest level as well.
“Only some member states are actively pursuing the goals of the EUTR and engaging properly with the industry. In those countries, we see a higher level of industry awareness and understanding of the due diligence obligations,” says Ms Banks.
2 Expand the product scope
WWF estimates that only 41% of the total value of timber imports into the EU is covered by the EUTR. WWF tested products coming into the UK that are not covered by the EUTR, and found many of the samples to contain high-risk species that had not been declared.
The exclusion of such a significant part of the trade is bound to lower the potential impact of the EUTR.
NEPCon believes that the EUTR should cover all timber and paper based products. If any products are exempted, the justification for this should be clearly provided in each case.
Clothes hangers are exempt from the EUTR - as are pencils, chairs, sofas, clocks, lamps, tools and many other products.
“By comparison, the US Lacey Act covers all timber products and the Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Act covers a majority of timber products, so we know it can be done within similar legal frameworks,” notes Ms Banks.
> Learn more about the product scope of the EUTR
3 Enhance guidance and transparency
“We see a definite need for better tools and guidance for the industry, helping them to overcome key obstacles in assessing and mitigating risks. At NEPCon, we are making an effort to provide concise information about risks in each country and suggestions for how to address those risks. We do this within the framework of projects, in some cases complemented by our own non-profit funds. However, ideally the EU should provide and maintain such information and guidance, “says Ms Banks.
“We also need more transparency in terms of how the EUTR works in practice. For instance, we believe that EUTR Monitoring Organisations should be required to make their due diligence systems public.”
To the best of our knowledge, NEPCon is the only MO that has made our system available in the public space.
Consultation pitfalls
As part of the on-going EUTR revision, the EU is running a public consultation via a questionnaire.
“We submitted our response, as the revision will benefit from qualified inputs from all who want the EUTR to succeed,” says Ms Banks. However, she finds that the questionnaire has a few shortcomings. For instance, the questionnaire has no space for respondents to clearly state whether they think the product scope should be expanded or not.
“Some of the questions can’t be truthfully answered as that information is missing or not publicly available, for instance the questions regarding the effect of the EUTR on the trade of timber. Whatever picture emerges from such answers would not be based on reality or actual data. To avoid a distorted picture, NEPCon has entered ‘no opinion’ for such questions and we would urge others to do the same.”
Finally, the questionnaire seems biased towards monetary thinking. “Questions about impact are all about costs for the European industry. I think we need to look beyond the cost of compliance as the only measure of success. We should look at the full range of costs and benefits that are expected from the regulation,” she says.
“Despite these concerns, the consultation remains a great opportunity to influence the revision process, so we would encourage all stakeholders to use it.”
Contribute your thoughts
You can provide your comments in the online questionnaire until 3 July 2015.
Recent reports of EUTR violations
Note: This list provides samples only and is not exhaustive.
Producer country | Cases |
Brazil |
June 9 2015: Greenpeace reported 22 sawmills and 45 exporters in Brazil to be involved in the use of false documents for exports of illegal timber to Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom amongst other markets. |
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) |
June 7 2015: Global Witness warned that European and US companies might face penalties for trading with DRC companies involved in illegal logging. August 2013: The German Competent Authority confiscates two shipments of Wengé timber from DRC, based on suspicions of illegal origin raised by Greenpeace. July 2013: The BBC TV documentary Panorama revealed flows of illegal timber from the DRC into the EU via the French port La Rochelle. March 2013: Belgian authorities seize a cargo of DRC afrormosia timber in the port of Antwerp, based on a Greenpeace tip-off that the timber may be illegal. |
Romania | Mid-May 2015: Thousands of Romanians protest illegal logging in the country. |
China |
February 2015: The UK Competent Authority reveals 9 out of 13 species declarations for Chinese plywood to be wrong. |
Unknown tropical countries |
April 2015: WWF Germany filed charges against five stationary importers and retailers, based on laboratory tests revealing that the paper included mixed tropical hardwood species that the companies had not declared and which indicated inadequate risk assessment under the EUTR. |
Various |
March 2015: Preliminary results of 20 National Risk Assessments for timber legality reveal the top most frequent risk to be the risk of violating due diligence obligations. |