Search Climate Insights Directory

The report evaluates global progress in forest governance and land rights, noting a record 182 killings of environmental defenders in 2016. While it highlights positive developments in illegal timber import controls in countries like South Korea, Malaysia, and the US, and the implementation of EU FLEGT agreements in Indonesia and Vietnam, it warns that climate finance for local communities remains insufficient, with only 10 percent reaching the local level in 2016. The document also emphasizes the lack of gender-sensitive provisions in community-based tenure regimes and the ongoing effort to track tenure security via SDG Indicator 1.4.2.

The document outlines the importance of combatting illegal logging for biodiversity and climate goals, detailing the demand-side trade regulations in the US, EU, and Australia. It distinguishes legality from sustainability and describes tools for businesses to mitigate risk, including procurement policies, forest management certification, and legality verification services.

The document outlines Belgium's legal framework for the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), noting that while the penalty regime allows for high fines and imprisonment, enforcement is hindered by low human and financial resources. Between March 2013 and mid-July 2017, the Competent Authority conducted only 26 checks on operators. It also details the limited legal avenues for NGOs to challenge inaction by the Competent Authority regarding substantiated concerns.

The report highlights that illegal harvesting of CITES-listed species occurs in over 25% of all natural and mixed World Heritage sites, threatening biodiversity and the 'outstanding universal value' of these areas. It identifies a gap in the current approach: the World Heritage Convention is site-focused, while CITES operates at the national level. To address this, the report proposes a coordinated value-chain response involving source, transit, and consumer countries, alongside the integration of monitoring and reporting systems. Case studies from Indonesia, Madagascar, the DRC, and Thailand illustrate the devastating impact of poaching and illegal logging, as well as the potential for success through community engagement and inter-agency cooperation.

The document outlines Denmark's EUTR framework, noting that the Danish Environmental Protection Agency serves as the Competent Authority. It details a penalty regime involving fines, confiscation of profits, and potential detention, while highlighting a trend of increasing checks from 2013 to 2016. The brief identifies significant challenges for NGOs in pursuing substantiated concerns due to a lack of formal decision requirements and limited appeal options.

The document outlines France's EUTR enforcement, noting that the Ministère de l’Agriculture, de l’Agroalimentaire et de la Forêt (MAAF) and the Ministère de l'Environnement, de l'Énergie et de la Mer (MEEM) serve as competent authorities. It details a penalty system including fines up to €100,000 and detention for individuals, with higher penalties for companies and organized gangs. While it highlights strengths such as the ability for 'approved' NGOs to file criminal complaints, it identifies weaknesses including a low number of checks by the MEEM and a lack of sanctions for traceability obligation failures.

The document outlines the Dutch legal framework for EUTR enforcement, identifying the Nederlandse Voedsel- en Warenautoriteit (NVWA) as the Competent Authority. It details the penalty regime, which includes criminal sanctions such as imprisonment and pecuniary penalties, and reports that as of March 2016, approximately 25% of the 150 operators checked were found to be non-compliant. The briefing also explains the processes for NGOs to submit substantiated concerns and challenge operators through civil or criminal proceedings.

Global Witness finds that all 13 of Liberia's largest logging contracts are illegal due to beneficial ownership violations, tax evasion, and the employment of wartime loggers. The report warns that these illegalities threaten the credibility of the Voluntary Partnership Agreement (VPA), the Liberia Forest Sector Project (LFSP), and the Liberian Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative (LEITI). It recommends the cancellation of illegal contracts, the enforcement of beneficial ownership disclosure, and the prevention of FLEGT licenses for illegal timber.

The document outlines Finland's legal framework for the EU Timber Regulation, identifying the Agency for Rural Affairs (Mavi) as the Competent Authority. It details the penalty regime, which distinguishes between intentional breaches (criminal sanctions) and unintentional breaches (administrative sanctions), and notes that between March 2015 and November 2016, the CA conducted 32 checks on imported timber and 19 on domestic timber. The briefing highlights a lack of formal procedures for NGOs to challenge the CA's inaction regarding substantiated concerns, though criminal complaints can be filed directly with police.

The document outlines Romania's legal framework for the EUTR, including the roles of the Ministry of Environment and Forests and the National Environmental Guard, the administrative penalty regime for operators and traders, and the challenges faced by NGOs in challenging authority inaction or operator legality.

The EU Timber Regulation (EUTR) in Austria is implemented via the Holzhandelsüberwachungsgesetz (HolzHÜG), with the Bundesamt für Wald overseeing imported timber and district administrative authorities managing domestic timber. Enforcement is characterized by low financial administrative penalties, such as fines up to €15,000 for placing illegal timber on the market, and a significant disparity in checks between domestic (505) and imported timber (14) between March 2013 and February 2015. While NGOs can file criminal complaints for fraud or money laundering, they face substantial legal hurdles in challenging the Competent Authority's inaction on substantiated concerns.

The report finds that a significant portion of Peruvian timber exports are high-risk or illegal, despite being accompanied by official Transport Guides (GTF). Analysis of 2015 export data reveals that exporters strategically direct 'green-listed' (low-risk) timber to strictly regulated markets like the US and EU, while sending 'red-listed' (high-risk) timber to markets with weaker regulations, such as China and Mexico. The study highlights a shift toward using Native Community permits and Local Forests to launder illegal wood, noting that 66% of analyzed GTFs were either not supervised or lacked critical traceability data like the harvest year (zafra).

The report analyzes 855 Visual Inspection Certificates and 2,364 Forest Transport Permits (GTFs) from the Port of Callao in 2015 to trace the supply chain of Peruvian timber. It finds that a significant portion of exports are high-risk or illegal, with exporters strategically directing 'red list' timber to countries with weak import laws, such as China and Mexico, while sending 'green list' timber to the US and EU. The study highlights a shift toward using Forest Permits in Indigenous Communities and Local Forests to circumvent oversight, as these modalities often lack supervision or exhibit high rates of illegality.

The document outlines Italy's legal framework for the EUTR, the resources allocated for its enforcement, the penalty regime for infringements, and the avenues available for NGOs to challenge illegal timber trade.

The document outlines Germany's legal framework for the EUTR, specifically the Holzhandels-Sicherungs-Gesetz (HolzSiG), and details the roles of the Bundesanstalt für Landwirtschaft und Ernährung (BLE) and regional authorities. It describes the penalty regime, which includes criminal sanctions for intentional offences and administrative fines up to €50,000. Enforcement data shows that between mid-2013 and January 2016, the BLE checked approximately 370 operators, finding around 50 in breach. The brief also notes challenges regarding legal standing for challenging CA inaction in administrative courts.

The document outlines the UK's legal framework for the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), identifying the Regulatory Delivery as the Competent Authority. It details the penalty regime for illegal timber placement, reports on enforcement activities between 2013 and 2015, and highlights systemic weaknesses regarding the lack of formal appeal procedures and the difficulty for NGOs to obtain legal standing to challenge operators.

The document outlines the severe risks faced by environmental human rights defenders (EHRDs), particularly indigenous people and women in the Americas and Cambodia. It identifies the root causes of these threats as the prioritization of profit from resource extraction and large-scale development over community rights and environmental health. The authors argue that a legally binding regional agreement based on Principle 10 of the Rio Declaration is essential to guarantee access to information, public participation, and justice in Latin America and the Caribbean to protect EHRDs and hold both State and corporate actors accountable.

The document outlines the risk-based due diligence framework of the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR), detailing the three-step process of information access, risk assessment, and risk mitigation. It emphasizes that while the legal framework is mandatory, the specific measures taken by operators can be flexible depending on the risk level, product complexity, and available information.

The document outlines the risk-based due diligence framework required by the EU Timber Regulation (EUTR). It details a three-step process—information gathering, risk assessment, and risk mitigation—while emphasizing that the specific measures taken must be proportionate to the identified risks and situational context.

The document outlines the mandatory due diligence framework of the EUTR, which requires operators to collect information, assess the risk of illegal timber, and mitigate those risks. It argues that a risk-based approach is necessary because absolute certainty regarding timber legality is often unattainable due to information gaps and distance from harvesting sites. The guide emphasizes that while the legal framework is fixed, the specific measures an operator takes should be proportionate to the identified risk level, product complexity, and available information.