EU must be ready to publicly name and shame bad actors if law on deforestation-free products is to be effective


  • It is essential that a mandatory public list of non-compliant businesses is included in the final regulation to curb EU-driven deforestation and forest degradation
  • Lessons from the implementation of the EU Timber Regulation show that Member States’ Competent Authorities (CAs) often fail to meaningfully implement and enforce the law in practice
  • A public list of offenders would provide a powerful additional incentive for compliance and be less dependent on CAs’ willingness to issue dissuasive penalties

Shipping containers filled with timber Credit: Shutterstock

The European Commission’s proposal for a regulation on deforestation-free products integrates and seeks to improve upon the framework set up by the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR). Effective implementation of the EUTR has been severely hindered by a number of enforcement challenges, as highlighted on the Commission’s Fitness Check on the Regulation. As a result, non-compliant wood worth millions of dollars has continued to flood into the EU market, as Earthsight has documented over the past years (for example, here).

A crucial factor in the failure of EUTR to stop non-compliant timber from entering the EU market is the failure of Member States’ Competent Authorities (CAs) to meaningfully implement and enforce the law in practice. Routinely, importers’ inadequate due diligence procedures are approved. Overall, implementation has been piecemeal. Crucially, penalties – when they are issued – have been far from dissuasive or proportionate to the damage caused.

If the new regulation to curb EU-driven deforestation and forest degradation is to avoid the same fate, it ought to learn from the lessons of the EUTR.

The Commission ought to be congratulated for its efforts to address the EUTR’s enforcement flaws when drafting the new proposal. However, a provision included in an earlier draft requiring it to publish a list of business that fail to fulfil their obligations under the regulation was dropped from the final proposal.

It is now essential that this provision is included in the final regulation.

Some Members of the European Parliament agree. MEP Anna Cavazzini, the regulation’s rapporteur for the parliament’s Committee on Internal Market and Consumer Protection, recently proposed an amendment to reinstate the provision.

Whereas other proposed measures give CAs a framework for stronger enforcement action compared to EUTR, it would be hard to prove when they are not being used properly (see the full brief for a more detailed discussion on this). A public list of contravening businesses does not have the same weakness; the failure of Competent Authorities to act according to such provision can easily be proven and remedied.

Unloading of soybeans from a cargo ship Credit: Alamy

A public list of non-compliant companies serves as an essential enforcement tool for a number of reasons, including:
  • It is not dependent on CAs’ willingness to issue meaningful penalties
  • It is a deterrent to companies as it essentially serves a ‘naming and shaming’ function
  • It increases transparency, which has been a weaknesses in the enforcement of the EUTR
  • It can help civil society monitor compliance and analyse the effectiveness of the regulation over time, ultimately leading to greater compliance
  • It can offer affected communities in producer countries evidence and backing to support demands for their rights
  • It can support sustainable consumer choices by serving as an additional resource to consumer watch groups and protection authorities
While the list would still be dependent on Competent Authorities identifying cases of non-compliance, a name-and-shame requirement for such cases would be independent of the severity of the penalty imposed. This is a key point due to CAs’ usual reluctance to pursue consequential punishment for bad actors.

It is for this reason that, in order to be more effective, a public list must also include companies that receive formal warnings from Competent Authorities, not only final penalties or sanctions that have passed through all appealing stages or been issued by a court.

If the new regulation is to avoid the same fate of the EUTR, the European Parliament and Council must insist on the inclusion of a mandatory public list of contravening businesses. Lessons on past failures need to be addressed from day one and not left to be reviewed several years down the line. The urgent climate and biodiversity demand nothing less.

Read Earthsight's full policy briefing here

More from Blog

Sanctions breached / Evidence of laundered Russian plywood found by EU investigation

Continue reading
Russian Sanctions / US sanctions should cover blood timber

Continue reading
Paraguayan leather / Are Italian tannery’s pledges on deforestation enough?

Continue reading
EU Deforestation Regulation / Success of landmark deforestation law far from assured 

Continue reading
EU Law / MEPs must strengthen planned corporate sustainability due diligence law

Continue reading
G7 Sanctions / Cash from "conflict timber" still flowing into Russia and Belarus

Continue reading
Interview / Earthsight spoke to Andrei Sannikov about the urgent need for strong sanctions on Russian and Belarusian timber

Continue reading
Indigenous rights / “We are in mourning, but we carry on with our struggle”

Continue reading
EU Policy / EU agrees on much needed landmark law, but work still needed to fully protect forests and communities

Continue reading
FSC / Crucial reforms blocked by industry actors

Continue reading

Stay up to date with all Earthsight news & updates

Receive email updates for the latest news and insights from Earthsight and be among the first to read our new investigations.

We keep your data secure and don’t share anything with third parties. Read full terms.