Ban on illegal timber in EU - pros and cons

During the 15th Illegal Logging Update held at Chatham House, the idea of banning illegal timber trade under the EU Due Diligence regulation was discussed.

Backed by several European governments, the European Parliament has proposed an outright ban applicable to all traders in the marketplace.

However, in December the EU Ministers of Agriculture could only agree on a softer version that merely aims to restrict the import of illegal timber.

The issue is now due for further debate before the EU Due Diligence regulation can be finalised.

If we can do it with fish, then why not with timber?

In his keynote speech, the UK Minister of Environment Hilary Benn put a strong case forward for implementing a clear and outright prohibition. The UK is known as one of the strongest supporters of a ban among the EU countries.

The Minister pointed out that EU recently adopted new strong regulations to curb illegal fishing. All fish entering the market now need to be documented as legal. “If we can do it with fish, then why not with timber?” he asked. Mr. Benn also pointed out that a slack due diligence policy would undermine the impact of other initiatives such as EU FLEGT and the REDD+ scheme that was confirmed as a key instrument to halt climate change in the final Copenhagen Accord. The Minister wondered how the EU can expect to see any less degradation of forests if it continues to import illegal timber.

Anke Schulmeister from WWF called for a strict EU regulation based on a legality definition that goes beyond legal harvesting, and warned against leaving too much interpretation to the state level. She also stressed the need for a harmonized EU approach towards recognition of monitoring organizations verifying compliance with the regulation.
 

European timber industries divided

The European timber industries are almost as divided as the EU politicians. The industries that are in favor of a ban see the clear advantage of reducing the unfair competition posed by illegal timber on the marketplace. Those who are against are concerned about the possible paper work load imposed on market operators.

During the meetings, André de Boer of the European Timber Trade Federation (ETTF) – an organization representing 13 European members – expressed clear support to the idea of a ban: “It closes loopholes and strengthens the weakest points”, he said. De Boer also pointed out that the EU Due Diligence ‘light’ version now on the table only applies to first placers on the market, which means that the system will only be as strong as the weakest point of entry, reducing the system’s effectiveness compared to the US Lacey Act. “We must make illegal trade an offence under criminal law”, de Boer said.

Although agreeing with imposing an outright ban on illegal timber trade, the ETTF does not agree with all parts of the EU Parliament’s due diligence proposals. In particular the organization opposes the introduction of a labeling system. Also, ETTF argues that it should be possible for timber trade federations to act as monitoring organizations under the system, while the EU Parliament had proposed to exclude this option.  

Some European timber industry associations remain skeptical about a ban, among them the influential Finnish Forest Industries Federation (FFIF). “Our concern is that a ban would place unnecessary bureaucracy on Finnish forest owners and other forest operators, who are already operating under strict national regulations and forest certification schemes,” says Anders Portin of FFIF.

“We are concerned that due to WTO rules, it will be necessary to place identical requirements on all operators, regardless of the level of law enforcement in the country. There are 400,000 private forest owners in Finland with an average size of 24 hectares, who all operate under strictly enforced national forest regulations, supervised by the Finnish authorities, and for whom additional bureaucracy will be most unwelcome.”

Finland has a huge domestic production of timber – in 2008, the harvested volume was about 53.5 million cubic meters. Finnish wood industries also rely to some extent on imports from Russia, where illegal logging is rampant. However, according to Portin all Russian timber imported to Finland is now FSC- or Controlled Wood certified, providing assurance of legality. He finally points out that imposition of bureaucratic requirements on the timber industries might lead to a competitive disadvantage of wood as a raw material for construction, compared to alternatives such as concrete or steel.
 

Concerns of European family forest owners

The Confederation of European Forest Owners (CEPF), share the concerns of FFIF.

According to Marta Gaworska of CEPT, the Confederation takes the view that efficient EU legislation to halt trade in illegal wood products is needed, but is concerned about the ‘burden of proof’ being placed on the forest owners.

The organisation argues that the key focus of the law should not be on ‘first placers’ but on traders further down the supply chain. The import of tropical logs accounts for only 0.2 % of EU consumption of raw wood, which the organisation finds to be disproportionate to the obligations that it fears will be put upon the 16 million European forest owners, the vast majority of whom are legally operating smallholders.

However, a ban would not only serve to keep illegal tropical logs away from the EU market. It would equally apply to illegal boreal wood and processed tropical wood products. It should also be kept in mind that illegal logging is considered to be a problem even within some EU countries such as Latvia, Romania and Bulgaria.
 

A way forward?

Despite the concerns expressed by FFIF and CEPF, it may be possible to find a way forward that will satisfy most, if not all, parties in the discussion. Both FFIF and CEPF indicate that they would welcome a ban on illegal timber trade provided that it would not lead to excessive bureaucracy for the forest owners.

It should be possible to set up a framework for implementing a ban on illegal timber trade that avoids huge loads of paperwork for European forest owners. The FSC Controlled Wood system, already functional and in use worldwide, is an example of a system set up in order to avoid unacceptable timber in the marketplace.

The Controlled Wood system is largely based on geographic risk assessments, where the degree of identified risk determines the level of necessary documentation and the relevance of field verification. The FSC Controlled Wood standard places the burden of proving legality mainly on those buying the logs from the forest, thus the complications for the forest owner are minimised.
 

UK pledge to action

Some speakers at the Chatham House meeting pointed out that a ban would ensure a level playing field for legally operating European forest industries. In his speech, Minister Benn said that the fear of additional strain on the domestic industries is simply a misunderstanding: “Far from being a hindrance, a prohibition will be a boost for the domestic timber industry,” was his judgment.

Hilary Benn indicated that if Europe could not agree on a ban, then the UK would take action at the national level. He stressed that countries need to be progressive and denounced ‘wait and see’ policies, based on the clear responsibility of consumer countries in halting illegal logging and the related deforestation which is interlinked with global warming. “It’s no good being in the same boat as everyone else if that boat is sinking,” he observed.

When asked about the related costs of such an action, Mr. Benn truthfully replied: “The answer is ‘dunno’. But doing the right thing is important and that’s why we’re doing it. The argument for getting this done in Europe is overwhelming.”

Learn more about EU initiatives on illegal fishing and logging

Chatham House has published an interesting comparison of the actions taken by the EU to curb illegal fishing and illegal logging, respectively. You can read and download this short, well-written report here.