Last month the EU Court of Auditors published a damning report on the EU Forest Law Enforcement and Governance Action Plan, of which the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) and FLEGT Voluntary Partnership Agreements (VPA) with supplier countries form component parts.
"More than 10 years after the commencement of the Plan, the EUTR is not fully implemented in certain member states," noted the Court.
It was equally critical of progress on FLEGT VPAs, none of which have yet delivered long-awaited EUTRexempt FLEGT-licensed timber.
And yet in the past decade much has changed in terms of industry legality performance. From the inception of the UK Timber Trade Federation's Responsible Purchasing Process, to announcements by the Czech Republic and Italy about their first penalties issued under the EUTR, I would say the picture isn't quite so dismal.
Another positive has been the development of the Timber Regulation Enforcement Exchange (TREE) Process, which I facilitate. This brings together a global group of anti-illegal timber regulation enforcement officials and others to establish a consistent base and communications channel to assist implementation of the EUTR, the US Lacey Act and the Australian Illegal Logging Prohibition Act (AILPA).
Since 2012 we have held nine meetings, and seen attendance grow from eight EU state representatives at the outset, to 18, plus delegates from Switzerland and Norway, and Lacey and AILPA agencies at the last event. We've looked at high-risk source countries, key species and undertaken a product focus on furniture, flooring and paper. We've considered most significant risks – 'red flags' for companies and enforcement officials in monitoring legality – and heard what those ahead of the curve in sourcing responsibly have to say about compliance standards.
Initially it was hard to find companies willing to put their heads above the parapet for this sort of event. But as anti-illegal timber regulation beds in, we've found more people willing to talk about their problems in assessing and mitigating risk and also the solutions they developed.
The meetings have also been an opportunity for NGOs with on-the-ground expertise to meet officials and discuss the kinds of information they can collect about illegal trade, and practical constraints on enforcement.
Feedback from participants about TREE has been consistently positive and they've voted with their feet, most returning every six months for the meetings' four days of training, discussion and joint progress.
Personally it has been a pleasure watching the antiillegal timber legislation so many hoped for becoming a reality and, despite the challenges, I have seen positive signs in countries that have committed time to the process.
Officials are now sharing information as never before. Responsible companies in the EU are focusing resources on understanding and controlling supply chains, with some seeing a business return on that investment.
Of course, some EU States could do more on EUTR enforcement, but the case for improvement and change in tackling illegal timber on both demand and supply side has never been stronger.
