Tackling the trade in illegal timber: a comparative study of legal frameworks

This research paper by the Center for International Environmental Law provides a comparative analysis of timber legality frameworks in five major importing markets: the United States, the European Union, Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. It examines the scope, actor obligations, definitions of illegal timber, and enforcement mechanisms of these laws to identify effective legislative options for combating illegal logging and deforestation.

• The United States' Lacey Act, expanded in 2008 to include timber violating laws in countries of harvest, identifies three types of violations: trafficking (initial take and subsequent trade), labelling (false information in records), and declaration requirements (specific import forms detailing scientific name and country of harvest).
• The European Union Timber Regulation (EUTR), effective since 2013, prohibits placing illegal timber on the EU market and mandates that operators 'exercise due diligence' through a three-step process of information access, risk assessment, and risk mitigation. Products with FLEGT licences or CITES documents are exempt from this due diligence requirement.
• Australia's Illegal Logging Prohibition Act (ILPA) and its associated Regulation (ILPR) penalize the import of illegally logged timber and require importers to perform due diligence and declare compliance to the Customs Minister. Enforcement of due diligence provisions was delayed, with full law enforcement only occurring six years after the Act was passed.
• Japan's Clean Wood Act (CWA), effective May 2017, requires companies to 'endeavour' to use legally harvested wood and confirm compliance with the laws of the country of harvest. It includes a voluntary registration system for companies to adopt specific legality confirmation measures.
• The Republic of Korea's Act on the Sustainable Use of Timbers (ASUT), amended in 2017, requires importers to file declarations with the Korea Forest Service, which verifies legality via documentation review. Unlike some other frameworks, there is no explicit due diligence requirement for companies.
• The frameworks differ in their definition of 'illegal timber': the US and EU include violations further up or down the supply chain (such as taxes or customs), while Australia, Japan, and the Republic of Korea focus specifically on harvest-related laws.
• Impact assessments show varying results: the US saw an estimated 32–44 percent decline in illegal timber imports following the 2008 Lacey Act amendments, and the EU saw a decline in tropical hardwood imports by 2015. Australia's 2019 review found insufficient evidence to assess impact due to enforcement delays, and no public quantitative assessments exist for Japan or the Republic of Korea.

APA

Sky, M. B. (n.d.). Tackling the trade in illegal timber: a comparative study of legal frameworks. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CIEL_Tackling-the-trade-in-illegal-timber-paper.pdf

Chicago

Sky, Melissa Blue. Tackling the trade in illegal timber: a comparative study of legal frameworks. Center for International Environmental Law, n.d. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CIEL_Tackling-the-trade-in-illegal-timber-paper.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Sky |first1=Melissa Blue |title=Tackling the trade in illegal timber: a comparative study of legal frameworks |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CIEL_Tackling-the-trade-in-illegal-timber-paper.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{skyndtackling, author = {Sky, Melissa Blue}, title = {{Tackling the trade in illegal timber: a comparative study of legal frameworks}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/CIEL_Tackling-the-trade-in-illegal-timber-paper.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }