gr.euronews.com
EU Deforestation Law Changes Risk Boosting Illegal Timber Imports
Proposed amendments to the EU's deforestation law, supported by 18 member states, risk increasing illegal timber imports from Russia and Belarus, potentially undermining sanctions and weakening enforcement, according to NGO Earthsight, which found over €1.5 billion in illegal imports since July 2022.
- How will proposed amendments to the EU's deforestation law impact efforts to curb illegal timber imports from sanctioned countries like Russia and Belarus?
- Proposed changes to the EU deforestation law, backed by most member states, may increase illegal timber imports from Russia and Belarus, according to NGOs. Eighteen EU countries requested simplification of the EU Deforestation Regulation (EUDR), delaying its implementation until December 30, 2025, for medium and large businesses and June 30, 2026, for smaller ones.
- What specific actions by EU member states are contributing to the potential weakening of the EU's deforestation regulations, and what are the consequences?
- The EUDR aims to reduce the EU's impact on global deforestation by implementing stricter controls on illegal timber imports and geo-tracking its origin. However, proposed amendments introducing a 'zero-risk' category could weaken these controls, potentially facilitating circumvention of sanctions on Russian and Belarusian timber. This is concerning given that eight countries supporting the amendment account for 67% of the EU's illegal timber market.
- What systemic issues within the EU's timber trade facilitate the circumvention of sanctions and allow for the continued illegal importation of timber from sanctioned countries?
- The 'zero-risk' category would eliminate geo-tracking requirements for certain countries, hindering efforts to combat illegal logging. Earthsight's research indicates that over €1.5 billion worth of illegal timber from Russia and Belarus entered the EU since July 2022, with further illegal imports totaling €273 million recorded between November 2024 and April 2025. This highlights the ongoing challenge of enforcing sanctions and underscores the risk of the proposed changes.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The framing of the article is heavily weighted towards the concerns of Earthsight. The headline (if one existed) would likely emphasize the potential for increased illegal timber trade. The introduction and subsequent paragraphs prioritize the negative consequences of the proposed changes, presenting them as a significant threat. The inclusion of specific monetary values of allegedly illegal imports further reinforces the negative narrative. This framing could unduly alarm readers and overshadow potential benefits of the proposed simplifications.
Language Bias
The article employs language that leans towards emphasizing the negative impacts of the proposed changes. Words and phrases such as "may enhance illegal trade," "open the door to circumventing sanctions," and "unduly alarm readers" create a sense of urgency and concern. While accurate, these choices lack complete neutrality. More neutral alternatives could be: "potentially increase illegal timber imports," "may facilitate evasion of sanctions," and "raise concerns among readers.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the concerns raised by the NGO Earthsight and the potential negative impacts of proposed changes to the EU deforestation law. While it mentions the perspective of the 18 EU countries advocating for simplification, it does not delve into their specific reasoning or provide a balanced representation of their arguments. The article also omits details on the internal EU political processes leading to the proposed changes. This omission limits the reader's ability to fully understand the complexities of the situation and the motivations behind the proposed amendments.
False Dichotomy
The article presents a somewhat simplistic dichotomy: either the EU adopts the proposed changes, potentially leading to increased illegal timber imports, or it maintains the stricter regulations. It doesn't explore potential middle grounds or alternative solutions that could mitigate the risks while still simplifying the regulation. The narrative frames the situation as a clear choice between two extremes.
Gender Bias
The article primarily quotes Tara Ganes, the lead timber expert at Earthsight. While her expertise is clearly relevant, the lack of alternative voices from other stakeholders might contribute to a skewed perspective. There is no discernible gender bias in language or representation within the quoted statements.
Sustainable Development Goals
The proposed changes to the EU deforestation regulation may weaken efforts to combat illegal logging and the trade of timber from Russia and Belarus, undermining sustainable forest management and responsible sourcing. The creation of a "zero-risk" category could facilitate circumvention of sanctions and illegal imports, contradicting sustainable consumption and production principles. The involvement of EU member states benefiting from illegal timber trade further exacerbates this negative impact.